Security Requirements Analysis Report

Comprehensive Security Analysis with Interactive Dashboard

Generated: 2025-11-20 12:26:41 Report Version: 2.0 - Comprehensive Security Analysis

---

1. Executive Summary

This section provides a high-level overview of the security requirements analysis, presenting key findings, validation results, and an interactive dashboard for stakeholders and decision-makers. The executive summary enables rapid comprehension of the security posture, critical risks, control coverage, and compliance status without requiring detailed technical knowledge.

1.1. Purpose and Scope

Purpose

This document presents a comprehensive security requirements analysis for the proposed application, systematically mapping high-level business requirements to specific, actionable security controls aligned with multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. The analysis provides a complete security requirements specification that guides secure system design, implementation, and verification.

Scope

This analysis encompasses all functional requirements provided, delivering comprehensive coverage across multiple security domains:

• Requirements Analysis: Systematic decomposition and security-relevant extraction from business requirements
• Stakeholder Analysis: Identification of stakeholders, trust boundaries, and security responsibilities
• Threat Modeling: Systematic identification and assessment of security threats using STRIDE methodology
• Security Control Mapping: Mapping requirements to multi-standard security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed implementation guidance
• Compliance Requirements: Identification of regulatory and legal compliance obligations
• Architectural Security: Security architecture recommendations and design patterns
• Implementation Planning: Prioritized, phased implementation roadmap
• Verification Strategies: Testing and validation approaches for security controls

The analysis provides both strategic guidance for security planning and tactical details for implementation teams.

1.2. Key Findings

This section summarizes the most critical results from the security requirements analysis, providing executives and stakeholders with immediate insight into the security posture and validation status.

Analysis Metrics

• Validation Score: 0.80/1.0
• Validation Status: ❌ Needs Review
• Analysis Iterations: 1
• Requirements Analyzed: 28

Application Summary

A browser-accessible web application that automates FPGA build flows by orchestrating source selection (including GitHub branches), invoking EDA toolchains (lint, synthesis, place & route, timing analysis), submitting and managing jobs on HPC clusters (SLURM), programming FPGA cards, and presenting real-time status, logs, artifacts and analytics via a responsive UI while maintaining inventory in a backend database and integrating with enterprise identity and notification systems.

The validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. A score of 0.8 or higher indicates that the requirements are ready for implementation, while scores below this threshold may require refinement before proceeding.

1.3. Security Overview Dashboard

This interactive dashboard provides executive-level visualization of key security metrics and trends, enabling rapid assessment of the security posture through intuitive charts and data visualizations. The dashboard presents critical information across multiple dimensions: risk distribution, security control coverage, compliance status, implementation progress, and data quality metrics. For optimal viewing experience, render this document with Quarto to enable interactive chart functionality, allowing stakeholders to explore data dynamically and drill down into specific areas of interest.

Risk

Figure 1: Risk heat map showing threat distribution by likelihood and impact (1-5 scale).

Top 5 Highest Risks:

THR-001 (Critical) - Edge & Auth (AD SSO, session management) - Category: Spoofing - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 4 - Description: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, replay) allowing an attacker to impersonate a legitimate user and access the web application and APIs.

THR-004 (High) - Frontend Layer (log viewer and file previews) - Category: Information Disclosure - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 3 - Description: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session tokens, PII, or internal data, or executes actions on behalf of the user.

THR-019 (High) - Frontend Layer (browser storage & caching) - Category: Information Disclosure - Likelihood: 4 | Impact: 3 - Description: Sensitive tokens, PII or internal URLs stored in browser localStorage, indexed DB, or caches are recovered from a compromised client or shared device.

THR-002 (High) - Edge & Auth (GitHub OAuth & Webhooks) - Category: Spoofing - Likelihood: 3 | Impact: 4 - Description: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger unauthorized builds or access repository metadata.

THR-003 (High) - Frontend Layer (session & cookies) - Category: Spoofing - Likelihood: 3 | Impact: 4 - Description: Session hijacking via stolen session cookies (e.g., through XSS or network interception) allowing impersonation of authenticated users.

Controls

Figure 2: Security control distribution by standard (OWASP, NIST, ISO 27001).

Figure 3: OWASP ASVS control distribution by verification category (V1-V14).

Figure 4: Security control priority distribution (Critical/High/Medium/Low).

Coverage Metrics:

• Total Security Controls Mapped: 112
  • OWASP ASVS: 38 controls
  • NIST SP 800-53: 45 controls
  • ISO 27001: 29 controls
• Requirements with Security Control Mapping: 85.7% (24/28)
• Average Controls per Requirement: 4.0
• Critical Controls: 37 (33.0% of total)
• Requirements with Verification: 100.0% (28/28)
• Recommended ASVS Level: L2 (Standard)

Compliance

Figure 5: Compliance status across all applicable frameworks (Red-Amber-Green rating). Shows regulatory compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.) and security standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001).

Compliance Summary:

• ⚠️ OWASP ASVS: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)
• ⚠️ NIST SP 800-53: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)
• ⚠️ ISO 27001: In Progress (Next Audit: N/A)

Delivery

Figure 6: Projected implementation timeline by phase and week (based on priority-based planning).

Implementation Timeline (Projected):

• Phase 1 (Critical/High): 100% projected completion (Weeks 1-8)
• Phase 2 (Medium): 100% projected completion (Weeks 9-16)
• Phase 3 (Low/Ongoing): Continuous improvement and monitoring

Note: Timeline is based on priority-based planning and assumes steady implementation progress.

Data Quality

Validation Metrics:

Overall Validation Score: ⚠️ 0.80/1.0

Dimension Scores:

• ⚠️ Completeness: 0.75
• ✅ Consistency: 0.90
• ✅ Correctness: 0.85
• ⚠️ Implementability: 0.70
• ⚠️ Alignment: 0.78

Figure 7: Data quality and coverage metrics.

Traceability Matrix:

• Total Requirements: 28
• Linked to Threats: 28 (100.0%)
• Mapped to Security Controls: 24 (85.7%)
• With Verification: 28 (100.0%)

Data Quality: ⚠️ Good

---

2. Requirements Understanding

This section presents a comprehensive analysis of the functional requirements, extracting security-relevant information and establishing the foundation for the security requirements specification. Understanding the functional requirements is essential for identifying security implications, data sensitivity, trust boundaries, and security-critical components. This analysis transforms business requirements into security-aware specifications that inform threat modeling, control selection, and compliance assessment.

2.1. High-Level Requirements Analysis

The following high-level functional requirements have been identified and analyzed for security implications:

1. Active Directory (SSO) authentication and session management
2. Role-based access control (RBAC) and user profile management
3. Responsive web dashboard for build/task monitoring
4. Real-time updates to clients using WebSockets or Server-Sent Events
5. Interactive file browser with upload, drag-and-drop, previews, and versioning
6. Support for large file uploads with progress reporting and resumable uploads
7. Web-based task creation, editing, deletion and bulk task operations
8. Task queue management, prioritization and SLURM-based job submission API
9. Background worker service for HPC communication and job lifecycle management
10. REST API endpoints for submitting and managing jobs via SLURM
11. Web API for programming FPGAs (bitfile deployment) and UART integration
12. Live log streaming and log storage with export (PDF/CSV/TXT)
13. GitHub OAuth integration, repo/branch selection UI and webhook-driven automated builds
14. Linking builds to specific commits and PRs with commit metadata display
15. In-app, email and optional browser push notifications with user preferences
16. Reporting and analytics dashboard with charts, trends and exportable reports
17. Build artifact storage, download, retention policies and artifact versioning
18. Audit trail and task history for compliance and troubleshooting
19. Web-based administration panel for system configuration and health checks
20. Containerized deployment (Docker) and automated provisioning/upgrades via Ansible
21. Database backup/restore via web interface and health endpoints for monitoring
22. Session security, secure logout and protection against common web threats (CSRF/XSS/Injection)
23. Secrets management and secure storage of credentials (HPC, GitHub, FPGA controllers)
24. Access controls and isolation for FPGA hardware and HPC resources
25. Performance/scalability requirements for concurrent builds and real-time updates
26. Mobile-responsive design for tablets and phones
27. Rate-limiting and abuse prevention for APIs and uploads
28. Monitoring, alerting, and vulnerability/patch management processes

2.2. Detailed Requirements Breakdown

Req ID	Requirement	Business Category	Security Sensitivity	Data Classification
REQ-001	Active Directory single sign-on (SSO) integration …	Authentication	High	Internal
REQ-002	Role-based access control (RBAC) with configurable…	Authorization	High	Confidential
REQ-003	User profile management allowing users to set pref…	User Management	Medium	Internal
REQ-004	Responsive web dashboard for monitoring builds, ta…	User Experience	Low	Internal
REQ-005	Real-time client updates using WebSockets or Serve…	Real-time Communication	Medium	Internal
REQ-006	Interactive file browser with upload (drag-and-dro…	File Management	High	Confidential
REQ-007	Support large file uploads (multi-GB) with resumab…	File Management	High	Confidential
REQ-008	Web-based creation, editing, deletion of build tas…	Task Management	Medium	Internal
REQ-009	Task lifecycle management with status tracking (To…	Task Management	Medium	Internal
REQ-010	Task queue management with priorities, scheduling …	HPC Integration	High	Internal
REQ-011	Background worker service(s) responsible for commu…	Backend Services	High	Internal
REQ-012	REST API endpoints to submit, query, cancel and ma…	API	High	Internal
REQ-013	Controlled Web API for programming FPGAs with bitf…	FPGA Integration	High	Restricted
REQ-014	Integration with UART ports and console redirectio…	Hardware Access	High	Restricted
REQ-015	Live log viewer providing streamed EDA tool output…	Logging & Diagnostics	Medium	Internal
REQ-016	GitHub OAuth authentication option and UI for link…	Source Control Integration	Medium	Internal
REQ-017	Display commit metadata and ability to link builds…	Source Control Integration	Low	Public/Internal depending on repo
REQ-018	In-app notifications with a notifications center (…	Notifications	Low	Internal
REQ-019	Reporting and analytics dashboard showing build tr…	Reporting & Analytics	Medium	Internal/Confidential
REQ-020	Artifact storage with lifecycle policies, retentio…	Data Management	High	Confidential/Restricted
REQ-021	Comprehensive audit trail for user actions (login/…	Compliance & Auditing	High	Internal/Confidential
REQ-022	Admin panel for system configuration (roles, RBAC …	Administration	High	Confidential
REQ-023	Containerized deployment using Docker images for s…	Deployment	Medium	Internal
REQ-024	Database backup and restore features exposed via t…	Data Protection	High	Confidential
REQ-025	Transport encryption (TLS) for all web and API tra…	Cryptography & Secrets Management	High	Confidential/Restricted
REQ-026	Web application security controls including CSRF p…	Application Security	High	Internal
REQ-027	Network and infrastructure segmentation: backend s…	Network Security	High	Confidential
REQ-028	Operational monitoring, alerting and maintenance p…	Operations & Maintenance	Medium	Internal

2.3. Security Context and Regulatory Obligations

Primary regulatory and compliance considerations: GDPR (for personal data of EU users/accounts), corporate identity policies (Active Directory and SSO), ISO 27001 / SOC 2 controls for information security management, NIST Cybersecurity Framework for operational controls, and export-control considerations (EAR/ITAR) where FPGA designs or hardware may be subject to export restrictions. Additionally, privacy laws in user jurisdictions (e.g., CCPA) may apply to user profile data. Although PCI-DSS and HIPAA are not directly applicable unless payment or healthcare data are introduced, the system must follow corporate data classification, retention, and access-review policies. Security obligations include encryption in transit and at rest, centralized secrets management, strong authentication and authorization, audit logging, breach notification workflows, and periodic third-party security assessments.

2.4. Assumptions

• System will be deployed in an enterprise environment with internal network access to HPC clusters and FPGA hardware (on-prem or cloud-connected bare-metal).
• Active Directory or equivalent enterprise identity provider is available and reachable for SSO integration.
• HPC scheduler is SLURM and provides APIs/CLI accessible from backend services.
• GitHub is used for source repositories; OAuth app and webhook endpoints can be configured by admins.
• Users have modern browsers with WebSocket/SSE support and reasonable internet connectivity.
• Sufficient storage (object/block) and network bandwidth will be provisioned for large artifact uploads and downloads.
• A secrets management solution (or the ability to deploy one) is available for storing credentials and keys.
• FPGA programming and UART access must be performed from trusted backend services within protected network zones (not directly from public internet).
• Container runtime (Docker) and orchestration/automation tooling (Ansible) will be available in target environment.
• Legal and export-control restrictions for design data will be identified and enforced externally where applicable.

2.5. Constraints

• Must integrate with existing enterprise services: Active Directory/SSO, corporate email (SMTP), and GitHub; changes to these systems may be limited.
• FPGA hardware and UART access must remain on-premises or in a secured data center; the application cannot directly expose hardware to the public internet.
• Large file uploads must be supported despite possible network limitations; resumable uploads and chunking are required.
• Deployment must use Docker containers and Ansible for automation; alternative deployment models require additional justification.
• SLURM is the mandated scheduler for HPC; any non-SLURM clusters require adapter development.
• Database technology is subject to corporate standardization/policies (e.g., PostgreSQL or an approved RDBMS); cross-vendor compatibility may be limited.
• Data retention, backup frequency and encryption requirements must comply with corporate data governance and any applicable export-control policies.
• Administrative operations (e.g., programming FPGAs) require additional human approvals and audit logging; automated unrestricted programming is not allowed.
• System must adhere to corporate network segmentation and firewall constraints; backend services that need to reach external services (e.g., GitHub) may require proxies or jump-hosts.
• Third-party dependencies (EDA tools, licensing servers) may impose license and network constraints that affect build orchestration and must be accommodated.

---

3. Stakeholder Analysis

This section identifies and analyzes all stakeholders involved in or affected by the system, including users, administrators, external partners, and regulatory bodies. Stakeholder analysis establishes trust boundaries, defines security responsibilities, and identifies potential security concerns from different stakeholder perspectives. Understanding stakeholder relationships and trust boundaries is critical for designing appropriate access controls, authentication mechanisms, and data protection measures.

3.1. Identified Stakeholders and User Personas

Role	Privilege Level	Trust Level	Key Security Concerns
End User (Developer/Engineer)	User	Trusted	Unauthorized access to build systems, data leakage from build artifacts, misuse of EDA tools, and exposure to sensitive project files.
Project Manager	User	Trusted	Mismanagement of sensitive project data, unauthorized changes to build configurations, and exposure of project timelines.
System Administrator	Admin	Trusted	Privilege escalation risks, insider threats, unauthorized configuration changes, and potential data breaches.
Database Administrator	Admin	Trusted	Data integrity issues, unauthorized access to sensitive records, and exposure of system vulnerabilities.
GitHub Integration Service	Service Account	Partially Trusted	Insecure API access to repositories, lack of proper authentication mechanisms, and risks of automated build trigger abuse.
HPC Job Scheduler	Service Account	Partially Trusted	Unauthorized job submissions leading to resource exhaustion, exposure to job logs containing sensitive information, and data leakage during job processing.
Active Directory Service	Service Account	Trusted	Compromise of user credentials, unauthorized access to user profiles, and potential misuse of SSO capabilities.
Notification Service	Service Account	Partially Trusted	Spam notifications, unauthorized access to user notification settings, and phishing attacks via email notifications.
External Security Auditors	Guest	Untrusted	Unauthorized access to sensitive logs and reports, misinterpretation of sensitive data, and operational disruption during audits.
API Consumers (Third Party)	User	Partially Trusted	Data exposure through insecure API endpoints, lack of authentication/authorization, and potential for denial of service attacks.

3.2. Trust Model

Trust boundaries are established at the user interface, backend server, and database levels. Security mechanisms enforcing boundaries include user authentication via Active Directory (AD) for SSO, role-based access control (RBAC) to ensure users can only access data and functionalities pertinent to their roles, and network segmentation to mitigate risks of unauthorized access. End users can only access their builds and logs relevant to their roles; Project Managers have additional access to project timelines and task management features; Administrators have comprehensive management functions. The principle of least privilege is implemented by granting users the minimum access necessary to perform their responsibilities, thereby reducing the risk of data exposure and privilege escalation. Automated services (like GitHub integration and HPC job scheduling) are confined to specific functionalities, thus minimizing their potential attack surface. The system’s design ensures that no user or service can escalate privileges beyond their assigned roles, maintaining strict access control and monitoring all interactions through audit logs.

---

4. System Architecture Analysis

4.1. Architectural Overview

The system is a browser-accessible single-page frontend that communicates with backend application services via a secured API and real-time gateway. Application services include core REST APIs for authentication, RBAC, task lifecycle, and integrations, plus background workers that orchestrate SLURM job submissions, manage logs/artifacts, and interact with FPGA controllers. A data layer (relational DB, object store, caches, metrics) preserves catalogs, artifacts, audit trails and analytics. External integrations include Active Directory for SSO, GitHub for source-driven CI, corporate SMTP for email, a secrets manager, and on-prem HPC/FPGA hardware reachable from protected backend zones. Components are containerized and deployed via Ansible with health checks, monitoring, and role-based admin controls.

4.2. Architecture Diagram

4.3. Component Breakdown

Component	Responsibility	Security Criticality	External Dependencies
Frontend Layer	Provide responsive SPA UI and admin cons…	Medium	Corporate AD for SSO, Browser WebSocket/SSE support
Edge & Auth	Handle authentication/authorization flow…	Critical	Active Directory/IdP, GitHub OAuth
Application Services	Core REST APIs implementing RBAC, task C…	Critical	Secrets Manager (Vault), Corporate SMTP
Background Workers & Orchestrator	Asynchronous job runners that submit and…	Critical	HPC (SLURM), EDA tool licensing servers
HPC & FPGA Hardware Zone	On-premise HPC cluster for build executi…	Critical	On-prem SLURM-managed compute nodes, FPGA programming interfaces
Data Storage & Analytics	Persistent storage components including …	High	Approved RDBMS (PostgreSQL), Object storage system (S3-compatible)
External Integrations	Third-party services used for identity, …	High	Active Directory/IdP, GitHub
Deployment & Ops	Containerization, automated provisioning…	High	Container runtime (Docker), Ansible control plane

4.4. Data Flow Analysis

Users interact with the Web SPA which authenticates via AD/GitHub. The SPA calls Core APIs and connects to the WS gateway for real-time updates. Task creation and file uploads are stored in the DB and Object Store; background workers pick tasks and submit jobs to SLURM, stream logs back to workers, and store artifacts into the object store while updating DB records. FPGA programming requests flow from the API through an approval check to the FPGA control API, which executes programming inside the Hardware Zone. Audit logs and metrics are written to the DB and metrics store; notifications are sent via SMTP or in-app channels. Secrets are retrieved at runtime from a centralized secrets manager and never persisted in plaintext.

4.5. Attack Surface Analysis

Primary attack surfaces: 1) Web UI and APIs exposed to users and webhooks — risk: High. Controls: AD SSO, RBAC, TLS, WAF, rate limiting, CSRF/XSS protections and input validation. 2) OAuth and webhook endpoints (GitHub) — risk: Medium; secure with signed webhooks, OAuth scopes, and token lifecycle management. 3) Artifact upload endpoints for large files — risk: High for DoS and malware; mitigate with resumable uploads, content scanning, upload quotas, rate limits and integrity checks. 4) Backend REST APIs for SLURM and FPGA control — risk: High because they can trigger expensive jobs or hardware programming; protect with strict authZ, approval workflows, audit trails and service network isolation. 5) Secrets management and credentials — risk: Critical; use Vault, short-lived credentials, and avoid secret persistence. 6) Admin interfaces and deployment pipelines — risk: High; restrict via bastion hosts, MFA, and audit logging. 7) Monitoring and logging endpoints — risk: Medium; protect to prevent information leakage. Overall, prioritize hardening of authentication, authorization, input validation, network segmentation, and secrets handling to reduce exposure.

---

5. Threat Modeling

This section presents a comprehensive threat analysis of the system architecture and functional requirements. Threat modeling systematically identifies potential security vulnerabilities and attack vectors, enabling proactive risk mitigation through the application of appropriate security controls.

5.1. Threat Modeling Methodology

This analysis employs the STRIDE threat modeling methodology, a systematic framework developed by Microsoft for identifying security threats across six categories:

• Spoofing Identity: Threats involving impersonation of users or systems
• Tampering with Data: Threats involving unauthorized modification of data or system components
• Repudiation: Threats where users deny performing actions (lack of non-repudiation)
• Information Disclosure: Threats involving unauthorized access to sensitive information
• Denial of Service: Threats causing disruption or unavailability of system services
• Elevation of Privilege: Threats allowing unauthorized access to privileged functions

For each identified threat, the analysis evaluates likelihood (attack complexity and exposure) and impact (potential damage to confidentiality, integrity, or availability) to determine overall risk level. The methodology ensures comprehensive coverage of security concerns across all system components and interfaces.

5.2. Threat Analysis and Risk Assessment

5.2.1. Threat Overview

The following table provides a quick reference of all identified threats. Detailed analysis including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where available) is provided in the section below.

Threat ID	Component	Category	Risk Level	Likelihood	Impact
THR-001	Edge & Auth (AD SSO, session management)	Spoofing	Critical	High	High
THR-002	Edge & Auth (GitHub OAuth & Webhooks)	Spoofing	High	Medium	High
THR-003	Frontend Layer (session & cookies)	Spoofing	High	Medium	High
THR-004	Frontend Layer (log viewer and file previews)	Information Disclosure	High	High	Medium
THR-005	Application Services (DB access)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-007	Background Workers & Orchestrator (SLURM jobs)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-008	HPC & FPGA Hardware Zone (artifacts, bitfiles)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-009	Data Storage & Analytics (backups)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-011	Application Services (RBAC/authorization)	Elevation of Privilege	High	Medium	High
THR-012	External Integrations (Vault / Secrets Manager)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-013	GitHub Integration (automated builds)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-015	Deployment & Ops (Docker/containers)	Denial of Service	High	Medium	High
THR-017	Task Management & APIs (bulk operations)	Denial of Service	High	Medium	High
THR-018	Data Storage & Analytics (DB integrity)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-019	Frontend Layer (browser storage & caching)	Information Disclosure	High	High	Medium
THR-020	HPC & FPGA Hardware Zone (FPGA programming)	Elevation of Privilege	High	Medium	High
THR-022	Application Services & Object Store (logs/artifacts)	Information Disclosure	High	Medium	High
THR-023	File Management (uploads)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-025	Deployment & Ops (Ansible / images)	Tampering	High	Medium	High
THR-028	Background Workers & Orchestrator (service identity)	Spoofing	High	Medium	High
THR-029	Application Services (API serialization)	Elevation of Privilege	High	Medium	High
THR-006	Application Services (audit logging)	Repudiation	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-010	Frontend Layer (forms & state changes)	Tampering	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-014	Notifications (Email)	Information Disclosure	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-016	Edge & Auth (WebSockets / SSE)	Denial of Service	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-021	External Integrations (GitHub webhooks)	Spoofing	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-024	Data Storage & Analytics (object store capacity)	Denial of Service	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-026	Notifications (SMTP)	Information Disclosure	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-027	Application Services (webhooks & triggers)	Repudiation	Medium	Medium	Medium
THR-030	Frontend + Log Viewer (client-side rendering)	Tampering	Medium	Medium	Medium

Total Threats Identified: 30

5.2.2. Detailed Threat Analysis

This section provides comprehensive analysis of each identified threat, including descriptions, mitigation strategies, and residual risk assessment (where controls have been evaluated). Threats are organized by risk level for prioritized review.

Critical Risk Threats

THR-001 - Edge & Auth (AD SSO, session management)

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: High | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: Critical
• Description: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, replay) allowing an attacker to impersonate a legitimate user and access the web application and APIs.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce MFA for AD, use conditional access policies, short-lived SSO tokens, certificate-based authentication where possible, monitor anomalous sign-ins, implement session revocation and token revocation workflows, restrict admin logins via bastions and IP whitelisting.
• Controls Applied: Active Directory/IdP policies, MFA, Short-lived tokens and revocation, Conditional Access / IP restrictions, TLS for all auth flows
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: High
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

High Risk Threats

THR-002 - Edge & Auth (GitHub OAuth & Webhooks)

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger unauthorized builds or access repository metadata.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use minimal OAuth scopes, implement webhook signature verification (HMAC), rotate and store OAuth tokens in Vault, restrict webhook sources by IP where possible, log and alert on unusual webhook activity.
• Controls Applied: GitHub OAuth with limited scopes, Webhook HMAC signature verification, Secrets Manager (Vault) for token storage
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-003 - Frontend Layer (session & cookies)

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Session hijacking via stolen session cookies (e.g., through XSS or network interception) allowing impersonation of authenticated users.
• Mitigation Strategy: Set cookies as HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite=strict where applicable; use TLS everywhere; avoid storing tokens in localStorage; implement token binding, rotate session tokens, reduce session lifetime, detect concurrent sessions and anomalous usage.
• Controls Applied: HttpOnly/Secure/SameSite cookies, TLS everywhere, Session management policies
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-004 - Frontend Layer (log viewer and file previews)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session tokens, PII, or internal data, or executes actions on behalf of the user.
• Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize and encode all displayed log and file content, enforce Content Security Policy (CSP), use safe libraries for rendering, restrict HTML rendering, remove sensitive data before view, apply output encoding.
• Controls Applied: Output encoding & sanitization, CSP, Input validation for file names and metadata
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-005 - Application Services (DB access)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parameters, file metadata or search queries allowing data modification or disclosure.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use parameterized queries/ORMs, validate and constrain inputs, use least-privilege DB accounts, implement prepared statements and stored procedures, run RAST/DAST, review DB permissions and apply schema-level constraints.
• Controls Applied: Parameterized queries/ORM, DB least-privilege accounts, Input validation and allow-lists
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-007 - Background Workers & Orchestrator (SLURM jobs)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Attackers manipulate job submission payloads or job scripts (e.g., inject malicious commands or change job resources/priorities) to escalate impact or run unintended workloads on HPC.
• Mitigation Strategy: Validate and sanitize job scripts and parameters, sign or nonce job requests, restrict worker privileges for SLURM submission, run jobs under isolated service accounts, implement job template enforcement and whitelists for allowed commands.
• Controls Applied: Job request validation & signing, Least-privilege SLURM accounts, Job template enforcement
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-008 - HPC & FPGA Hardware Zone (artifacts, bitfiles)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain proprietary IP, via insufficient access controls on object storage or stale signed URLs.
• Mitigation Strategy: Encrypt artifacts at rest and in transit, enforce strict RBAC on object store, require authenticated access to downloads, use short-lived pre-signed URLs, audit access to artifacts, watermark sensitive outputs where possible.
• Controls Applied: Object storage encryption, RBAC and signed URLs, Audit logs for artifact access
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-009 - Data Storage & Analytics (backups)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Exposed or unencrypted DB or artifact backups (e.g., stored on shared file systems or cloud buckets) leading to disclosure of source, IP, or credentials.
• Mitigation Strategy: Encrypt backups with customer-managed keys, restrict access to backup storage, enforce secure transfer, rotate keys, log and monitor backup access, and test restore procedures securely.
• Controls Applied: Backup encryption, Restricted access and audit, Secure backup lifecycle management
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-011 - Application Services (RBAC/authorization)

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Broken or missing server-side RBAC allows normal users to perform admin actions (e.g., delete artifacts, change RBAC policies, program FPGAs).
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce server-side RBAC checks for all sensitive operations, implement fine-grained roles, perform regular policy audits, apply separation of duties and approval workflows for admin tasks, use automated tests for authorization.
• Controls Applied: Server-side RBAC enforcement, Separation of duties and approval workflows
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-012 - External Integrations (Vault / Secrets Manager)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Compromise or misconfiguration of the secrets manager exposes credentials for HPC, GitHub, EDA licensing, or other systems enabling further compromise.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use Vault with strong ACLs and audit logging, enable dynamic secrets and short leases, require hardware-backed keys (HSM) where possible, rotate and rotate on deployment, restrict access by identity and role, enable MFAs and monitor access.
• Controls Applied: Secrets Manager (Vault) with dynamic secrets, HSM-backed keys, Strict ACLs and audit logging
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-013 - GitHub Integration (automated builds)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Malicious code in a repository or PR triggers automated builds which execute in the CI environment, potentially exfiltrating data or attacking other systems (supply-chain/code execution).
• Mitigation Strategy: Run builds in isolated ephemeral containers/namespaces, use dedicated read-only runners, enforce signed commits or protected branches, require PR approvals for build triggers, scan code for secrets and malware before build, restrict network egress from build runners.
• Controls Applied: Ephemeral sandboxed build runners, Protected branches and required reviews, Static analysis & secret scanning
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-015 - Deployment & Ops (Docker/containers)

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Misconfigured container runtime (privileged containers, host mounts) or malicious containers cause container escapes or resource exhaustion leading to DoS of control plane or other services.
• Mitigation Strategy: Run containers unprivileged, disable unnecessary capabilities, enforce seccomp/AppArmor profiles, restrict host mounts and Docker socket access, image scanning, use runtime isolation (gVisor, Kata), monitor resource usage and enforce quotas.
• Controls Applied: Container hardening (seccomp/AppArmor), Image signing & scanning, Unprivileged containers
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-017 - Task Management & APIs (bulk operations)

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Intentional or accidental bulk task creation/cancellation (e.g., via API abuse) floods the job queue and exhausts HPC or application resources.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement API rate limiting, per-user and per-team quotas, approval workflow for large/batch operations, queue prioritization and resource reservations, and alerting on abnormal activity.
• Controls Applied: Rate limiting and quotas, Approval workflows for large jobs, Queue prioritization
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-018 - Data Storage & Analytics (DB integrity)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Unauthorized modification of DB records (task history, audit trails) either via compromised credentials or application bug, undermining forensicability and integrity of results.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use DB-level access controls, immutable audit trails exported to secure storage, cryptographic integrity checks, restrict DB admin operations, use multi-person approval for destructive operations, and monitor for anomalous DB writes.
• Controls Applied: DB role separation, Immutable audit exports, DB activity monitoring
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-019 - Frontend Layer (browser storage & caching)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Sensitive tokens, PII or internal URLs stored in browser localStorage, indexed DB, or caches are recovered from a compromised client or shared device.
• Mitigation Strategy: Avoid storing tokens in localStorage; use HttpOnly cookies; prevent caching of sensitive pages (cache-control: no-store), clear temporary data on logout, warn about shared devices, and provide secure mobile app guidance.
• Controls Applied: HttpOnly cookies, Cache-control headers (no-store), Client-side guidance
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-020 - HPC & FPGA Hardware Zone (FPGA programming)

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Bypassing approval workflow or exploiting API flaws to program FPGA devices with unauthorized bitfiles, potentially damaging hardware or enabling persistent hardware-level backdoors.
• Mitigation Strategy: Require multi-person approvals for hardware programming, cryptographic signing of bitfiles, strict RBAC for programming APIs, hardware-level authentication and logging, and implement failsafe controls on FPGA programming endpoints.
• Controls Applied: Multi-person approval workflows, Bitfile signing and verification, RBAC for programming APIs
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-022 - Application Services & Object Store (logs/artifacts)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Storage of logs and artifacts with public or overly permissive ACLs or long-lived pre-signed URLs leads to unintended public access of sensitive outputs.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use least-privilege ACLs, default private buckets, short-lived pre-signed URLs, encrypt at rest, audit and alert on public ACLs, and periodically scan storage for exposed objects.
• Controls Applied: Private by default object store, Short-lived signed URLs, Storage ACL audits
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-023 - File Management (uploads)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Malicious or malformed file uploads (including bitfiles) that contain malware or specially crafted data causing downstream EDA tools or workers to behave unexpectedly or execute arbitrary code.
• Mitigation Strategy: Scan uploads for malware, validate file formats and signatures, store uploads as non-executable, process files in sandboxed/ephemeral environments, block known bad file types, and apply content-disarm-and-reconstruct where possible.
• Controls Applied: Malware scanning, File type validation, Sandboxed processing
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-025 - Deployment & Ops (Ansible / images)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Compromise of Ansible playbooks, container images, or CI artifacts leads to deployment of backdoored containers or malicious configuration changes across environment.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use signed playbooks and signed container images, restrict access to artifact repositories, use reproducible builds, scan images for vulnerabilities, and require approvals for production changes.
• Controls Applied: Artifact signing, Image scanning, Restricted artifact repo access
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-028 - Background Workers & Orchestrator (service identity)

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: A compromised worker node impersonates the orchestrator or other services to SLURM or storage systems to access or modify jobs/artifacts.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use mTLS for service-to-service communication, mutual authentication and authorization (service identity), service mesh or short-lived service credentials, host attestation, and restrict worker network segmentation.
• Controls Applied: mTLS for internal services, Service identity & attestation, Network segmentation
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

THR-029 - Application Services (API serialization)

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Initial Risk Level: High
• Description: Insecure deserialization or unsafe object handling in API endpoints leading to remote code execution or privilege escalation for attackers sending crafted payloads.
• Mitigation Strategy: Avoid unsafe deserialization, use allow-lists for serialized data, validate all input, apply runtime integrity checks, run services with minimal privileges, and conduct code reviews and automated scanning for deserialization issues.
• Controls Applied: Input validation and allow-lists, Runtime privilege restriction
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Medium
• Status: ⚠️ Requires Review

Medium Risk Threats

THR-006 - Application Services (audit logging)

• Category: Repudiation
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed build submissions, approvals, or FPGA programming actions.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement immutable, append-only audit logs with hashing, forward logs to a central SIEM, record actor identity and request context, protect logs from modification and ensure time synchronization, retain logs per policy.
• Controls Applied: Append-only audit logs, Centralized SIEM/ELK with write-once policies
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ✅ Accepted

THR-010 - Frontend Layer (forms & state changes)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to unknowingly create, cancel, or alter build tasks.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement anti-CSRF tokens for state-changing endpoints, enforce SameSite cookies, verify Origin/Referer headers for sensitive endpoints, and require re-authentication for critical actions.
• Controls Applied: CSRF tokens, SameSite cookie flags, Origin/Referer checks
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ✅ Accepted

THR-014 - Notifications (Email)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Inclusion of sensitive build outputs, artifact links or secrets in email notifications leads to information leakage, especially if email recipients include external addresses.
• Mitigation Strategy: Redact or avoid including sensitive data in emails, include only authenticated links that require login, restrict external recipients, enable TLS and DMARC, and provide user notification preferences.
• Controls Applied: SMTP TLS, Email content redaction, Notification preferences
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ✅ Accepted

THR-016 - Edge & Auth (WebSockets / SSE)

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Abuse of real-time channels (WebSockets/SSE) to open many connections or send large messages, exhausting server resources and denying service to legitimate users.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce per-client connection limits, authentication for real-time channels, rate limits for messages, connection timeouts, load balancer protections and backpressure mechanisms, use autoscaling and circuit breakers.
• Controls Applied: Connection quotas, Rate limiting, Authentication for real-time channels
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ✅ Accepted

THR-021 - External Integrations (GitHub webhooks)

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Replay of webhook events or forging webhook payloads to trigger builds or inject falsified commit/PR metadata.
• Mitigation Strategy: Verify webhook signatures and timestamps, reject replayed events, enforce short TTLs for nonces, restrict incoming webhook IP ranges, and log webhook sources for audit.
• Controls Applied: Webhook HMAC verification, Timestamp/nonce checks, Source IP restrictions
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ✅ Accepted

THR-024 - Data Storage & Analytics (object store capacity)

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Exhaustion of storage capacity by deliberate or accidental upload of very large artifacts, causing new builds to fail or system to degrade.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce per-user and per-project storage quotas, lifecycle policies to expire old artifacts, alerts on capacity thresholds, deduplication, and pre-upload size checks.
• Controls Applied: Storage quotas and lifecycle policies, Capacity monitoring and alerts
• Control Effectiveness: High
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ✅ Accepted

THR-026 - Notifications (SMTP)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Emails sent without enforced TLS or to external recipients might be intercepted, exposing commit details, logs, or artifact links.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce STARTTLS/TLS for SMTP, prefer encrypted internal channels for sensitive content, avoid sending secrets in email bodies, apply DMARC/DKIM/SPF, and restrict auto-notifications to internal addresses.
• Controls Applied: Enforced SMTP TLS, Email policies (DMARC/DKIM/SPF)
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ✅ Accepted

THR-027 - Application Services (webhooks & triggers)

• Category: Repudiation
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Insufficient logging of webhook events and build triggers makes it difficult to prove who triggered a build or when an automated action occurred.
• Mitigation Strategy: Log full webhook metadata with signature verification results, persist event payloads securely, correlate with user accounts, and forward to SIEM; ensure log integrity and retention policies.
• Controls Applied: Webhook event logging, Centralized SIEM correlation
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ✅ Accepted

THR-030 - Frontend + Log Viewer (client-side rendering)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Initial Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Improper handling of log content or binary preview causes client-side injection or misuse (reflected/stored XSS) affecting other users viewing logs or dashboards.
• Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize and escape any log content and file previews before rendering, use text-only safe viewers for logs, restrict rendering of HTML in logs, and enforce CSP.
• Controls Applied: Log sanitization, CSP and safe rendering libraries
• Control Effectiveness: Medium
• Residual Risk Level: Low
• Status: ✅ Accepted

Risk Reduction Summary:

• Critical Risk Reduction: 1 threats reduced from Critical to lower levels
• High Risk Reduction: 20 threats reduced from High to lower levels
• Residual Risk Distribution: 1 threats remain at Critical/High level

5.3. Risk Summary

Critical threats center on identity (AD SSO and OAuth token compromise), backend orchestration (manipulation of job submissions and compromised workers), and exposure of proprietary artifacts (bitfiles, backups, and storage ACL misconfigurations). Attack vectors with highest business impact include credential theft and session hijacking, malicious repository/code triggers executing in CI, and tampering with SLURM job payloads or FPGA programming flows. The overall risk posture is medium-high: multiple High and Critical-rated risks exist, but many are mitigable with standard controls (MFA, token management, mTLS, signed artifacts, RBAC, sandboxing). Priority areas for immediate controls: 1) Strengthen identity and session protections (MFA, token rotation, conditional access); 2) Harden integration points (webhook signature verification, Vault for secrets, short-lived credentials); 3) Isolate and sandbox build execution and background workers (ephemeral runners, mTLS, network segmentation); 4) Enforce strict storage and artifact controls (encryption, short-lived URLs, ACL audits); and 5) Implement comprehensive logging, immutable audit trails and automated authorization testing. Addressing these will reduce the highest residual risks; remaining medium risks require continuous monitoring, regular review of RBAC and approval workflows, and secure deployment supply-chain practices.

---

6. Multi-Standard Security Requirements Mapping

This section maps each functional requirement to specific security controls from multiple industry standards: OWASP Application Security Verification Standard (ASVS), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, and ISO 27001:2022. This multi-standard approach provides comprehensive coverage across application-level, enterprise-level, and organizational-level security domains:

• OWASP ASVS: Application-level security controls (code, APIs, authentication, session management)
• NIST SP 800-53: Enterprise security controls (governance, risk management, incident response)
• ISO 27001: Information security management controls (policies, procedures, organizational controls)

Requirements are prioritized based on risk assessment and compliance needs, with controls selected from the most appropriate standard(s) for each requirement type.

6.1. Recommended ASVS Compliance Level

Recommended Level: L2

Level 2: Standard

Recommended for most production applications. Provides comprehensive security coverage suitable for applications handling sensitive data or operating in regulated environments. Includes controls for authentication, authorization, data protection, and secure communications.

The recommendation considers factors such as:

• Data sensitivity and classification levels
• Regulatory and compliance requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, etc.)
• Threat landscape and risk assessment from threat modeling
• Business criticality and potential impact of security incidents

All security controls referenced in this document align with this recommended compliance level.

6.2. Requirements Mapping

This section maps each high-level requirement to specific security controls from multiple standards (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) with detailed descriptions, relevance explanations, and integration guidance. Controls are grouped by standard for clarity.

6.2.1. R1: Active Directory (SSO) authentication and session management

OWASP ASVS Controls

V2.1

Requirement: Verify that authentication mechanisms use secure, industry standard protocols (e.g., SAML, OAuth2, OpenID Connect) for single sign-on and federation.

Relevance: Directly applies to AD SSO: requires using industry-standard federation protocols (e.g., SAML, OAuth2) for secure SSO integration with Active Directory. Ensures authentication flows align with proven standards.

Integration Tips: Implement SAML or OpenID Connect integration with AD FS/Azure AD, validate assertions/tokens, enforce TLS for all endpoints and validate audience/issuer. Leverage existing libraries and ensure correct claim mapping for identity attributes.

Verification Method: Review SSO configuration, test SAML/OIDC flows, inspect tokens/assertions, verify TLS and signature validation, and check assertion lifetime and audience restrictions.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

V2.2

Requirement: Session management must protect session tokens (use secure cookies, HttpOnly, SameSite, and consider session rotation on privilege change).

Relevance: Directly addresses secure session token handling required after AD SSO authentication — prevents session theft and fixation. Applies to cookie and token-based sessions.

Integration Tips: Set Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite attributes on cookies, rotate session tokens on privilege changes and on re-authentication, and implement session timeout/idle expiration. Consider token binding where possible.

Verification Method: Inspect cookie flags, perform session fixation and hijack tests, verify session rotation on privilege elevation and check session timeout behavior.

Level: L1 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

IA-2

Requirement: Identify and authenticate users. The information system uniquely identifies and authenticates organizational users (or processes acting on behalf of users).

Relevance: Mandates unique identification and authentication of users, which is fundamental to SSO and session management integrated with AD. Supports accountability and traceability for sessions.

Integration Tips: Map AD identities to application accounts, ensure unique user identifiers (e.g., UPN), enforce account linking processes and handle orphaned/disabled AD accounts. Log authentication events centrally.

Verification Method: Inspect identity mapping, test authentication for multiple users, verify unique IDs in logs and ensure disabled AD accounts are denied access.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.4.2

Requirement: Secure log-on procedures. Where required, users shall be provided with a secure log-on procedure.

Relevance: Specifies secure logon procedures for users, reinforcing requirement to secure AD SSO flows and session establishment practices. Relevant for corporate compliance.

Integration Tips: Document and enforce secure log-on procedures for SSO users, include MFA requirements if applicable, and train administrators on secure SSO configuration. Keep procedures updated with changes.

Verification Method: Review documented procedures, check enforcement of secure logon (MFA, session policies), and interview administrators about SSO process.

Priority: High

6.2.2. R2: Role-based access control (RBAC) and user profile management

OWASP ASVS Controls

V4.1

Requirement: Verify role-based access control is enforced server-side and default-deny is applied for all REST endpoints and UI actions.

Relevance: Specifies server-side enforcement and default-deny, preventing client-side bypass of RBAC. Highly relevant for API-driven profile and role management.

Integration Tips: Enforce RBAC in API gateway and application server, reject requests lacking required roles, implement least privilege, and perform automated tests for role boundaries.

Verification Method: Conduct authorization tests, attempt privilege escalation, and review access control checks across endpoints.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AC-2

Requirement: Account management. The organization manages information system accounts, including establishing, activating, modifying, disabling, and removing accounts.

Relevance: Defines lifecycle management for accounts which is essential for RBAC and profile management. Ensures accounts and roles are provisioned and deprovisioned properly.

Integration Tips: Implement automated provisioning/deprovisioning tied to AD/group membership, enforce role assignment workflows, and schedule periodic access reviews. Integrate with IAM for centralized control.

Verification Method: Inspect account lifecycle procedures, test provisioning/deprovisioning scenarios, and review recent account change logs.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.1.2

Requirement: Access to networks and network services shall be controlled.

Relevance: Mandates access control policy governing who can access resources — supports RBAC design and enforcement for application-level resources.

Integration Tips: Define RBAC policies aligned with business roles, document permissions for each role, and enforce via server-side checks. Ensure policies are part of the ISMS.

Verification Method: Review access control policies, role definitions, and sample enforcement in the application.

Priority: High

A.9.2.3

Requirement: Users shall follow secure use of authentication information and manage their credentials safely.

Relevance: Supports user responsibilities in managing profiles and credentials, helping prevent misuse of accounts and roles.

Integration Tips: Provide user guidance for credential handling, enforce password/MFA policies and log profile changes. Include role-change approval workflows.

Verification Method: Review user guidance materials, check enforcement of credential policies and audit of profile changes.

Priority: Medium

6.2.3. R3: Responsive web dashboard for build/task monitoring

OWASP ASVS Controls

V14.1

Requirement: Verify web application is resilient to XSS and that output encoding is used on all UI elements including dashboards and charts.

Relevance: Dashboards render dynamic content and charts — preventing XSS is essential to protect user sessions and data confidentiality on responsive interfaces.

Integration Tips: Apply context-aware output encoding for all dynamic values in the dashboard, sanitize HTML, and use CSP headers. Use secure front-end frameworks and avoid dangerous innerHTML usage.

Verification Method: Perform XSS testing (automated and manual), review CSP headers and template encoding usage, and test across devices.

Level: L1 | Priority: Critical

V14.3

Requirement: Ensure secure configuration of UI frameworks and third-party components used in dashboards (no insecure libraries).

Relevance: Responsive dashboards often use many UI libraries; insecure components introduce vulnerabilities. This control enforces secure dependency management.

Integration Tips: Maintain SBOM for front-end libs, scan for vulnerable dependencies, and update frameworks. Lock versions and use vetted CDN or self-hosted assets.

Verification Method: Run SCA on front-end dependencies, review SBOM, and verify upgrades/patches applied.

Level: L1 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-7

Requirement: Boundary protection. Monitor and control communications at external and internal boundaries of the information system.

Relevance: Dashboard communicates with APIs and internal services; boundary protections help ensure that only authorized traffic reaches monitoring endpoints.

Integration Tips: Deploy API gateways, WAFs and network segmentation for dashboard backend; ensure service-to-service communications are authenticated and encrypted.

Verification Method: Review network architecture, inspect WAF rules, and perform penetration testing of dashboard backends.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1.1

Requirement: Operating procedures should be documented for system operation including monitoring interfaces and dashboards.

Relevance: Operational documentation ensures dashboards are managed securely and monitored for anomalies, helping maintain secure operation across responsive UI changes.

Integration Tips: Document dashboard operations, access procedures and update processes. Include incident handling steps when dashboard shows anomalous activity.

Verification Method: Review documentation, run operational drills, and verify staff adherence to procedures.

Priority: Medium

6.2.4. R4: Real-time updates to clients using WebSockets or Server-Sent Events

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.2

Requirement: Ensure that WebSocket connections use TLS, validate origin headers, and implement proper authentication and authorization for message channels.

Relevance: Directly applicable: real-time channels must be encrypted and authenticated, and message channels authorized to prevent data leakage or unauthorized control messages.

Integration Tips: Terminate WebSocket over TLS (wss://), validate Origin and Sec-WebSocket-Protocol as applicable, attach token-based authentication and enforce channel-level ACLs server-side.

Verification Method: Inspect TLS configuration, attempt unauthorized channel access, review token usage on handshake, and test Origin header validation.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

V10.1

Requirement: Real-time features must implement authorization checks server-side and validate messages to prevent injection and flooding attacks.

Relevance: Prevents misuse of real-time channels by enforcing server-side authorization and message validation to mitigate injection or flooding from clients.

Integration Tips: Implement message schema validation, rate limiting per connection, and server-side ACL checks per subscription channel. Detect and disconnect abusive clients.

Verification Method: Simulate malformed messages and flooding, verify server rejects unauthorized messages and enforces quotas.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-8

Requirement: Transmission confidentiality and integrity. Protect the confidentiality and integrity of transmitted information.

Relevance: Mandates protection of data in transit — core to using WebSockets/SSE securely to protect real-time updates’ confidentiality and integrity.

Integration Tips: Use TLS for all SSE/WebSocket endpoints, enable strong cipher suites, and ensure certificate management and pinning where appropriate.

Verification Method: Network capture analysis to verify encryption, validate cipher suites and certificate chain, and run MITM tests.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.10.1.1

Requirement: Policy on the use of cryptographic controls shall be developed and implemented to protect information.

Relevance: Provides governance for using cryptography on real-time channels ensuring organization-level policies apply to WebSockets and SSE.

Integration Tips: Ensure cryptography policy mandates TLS for real-time channels, key lifecycle management, and acceptable algorithms. Document exceptions and review periodically.

Verification Method: Review cryptography policy, confirm enforcement in system settings, and audit TLS certs and key lifecycles.

Priority: High

6.2.5. R5: Interactive file browser with upload, drag-and-drop, previews, and versioning

OWASP ASVS Controls

V13.3

Requirement: Validate and sanitize uploaded files. Enforce allow-listing of content types, scan for malware and store outside webroot with unpredictable names.

Relevance: Directly applies to file browser uploads: prevents arbitrary file execution, malware uploads, and content-type spoofing during drag-and-drop/previews.

Integration Tips: Implement server-side MIME type checks and content inspection, store files outside webroot, generate secure filenames, and integrate AV scanning on upload.

Verification Method: Upload test files (malicious and benign), inspect storage location and filenames, and confirm AV scanning invoked.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

V13.1

Requirement: Implement secure file storage and access controls including versioning metadata and integrity checks for artifacts.

Relevance: Versioning and metadata integrity are directly relevant to maintaining artifact provenance and preventing tampering in the file browser.

Integration Tips: Store version metadata in the database with checksums for each version, restrict access via server-side ACLs and enable immutable storage for critical artifacts.

Verification Method: Inspect version metadata records, verify checksum calculation, and test access control enforcement for different roles.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SI-3

Requirement: Malicious code protection. Employ anti-malware tools and scanning to detect and respond to malicious code.

Relevance: Supports malware scanning of uploaded artifacts and preview generation to prevent delivery of malicious content to users or preview services.

Integration Tips: Use sandboxed preview rendering, scan content on upload, and quarantine suspicious files. Ensure AV definitions are updated regularly.

Verification Method: Validate AV logs, test detection of known-malware test files, and inspect quarantine workflow.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.13.2.1

Requirement: Information transfer policies should include controls for transfer of information and files including secure upload/download processes.

Relevance: Governance for file transfer processes ensures secure handling and documented controls for uploads and versioning.

Integration Tips: Define transfer policies for upload size limits, version retention, access permissions, and secure previewing. Include training for users on allowed content.

Verification Method: Review policies, confirm operational controls enforce policies, and test adherence with sample transfers.

Priority: Medium

6.2.6. R6: Support for large file uploads with progress reporting and resumable uploads

OWASP ASVS Controls

V13.5

Requirement: For large uploads implement chunking, resumable upload protocols with integrity checks and server-side limits to prevent resource exhaustion.

Relevance: Directly addresses resumable/chunked uploads, ensuring integrity checks and preventing resource exhaustion during large file handling.

Integration Tips: Use established resumable protocols (e.g., tus), implement chunk integrity checks (hash per chunk + final verification), and perform authorized session checks per chunk.

Verification Method: Test resumable upload flows with interruptions, verify integrity checks, and confirm server enforces chunk/overall size limits.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

V5.1

Requirement: Implement rate-limiting and quotas on upload APIs and provide resumable upload integrity via checksums (e.g., MD5/SHA2/ETag verification).

Relevance: Specifies checksums and quotas for upload integrity and abuse prevention — directly applicable to progress/resume features.

Integration Tips: Emit progress tokens securely, provide resumable API endpoints that accept chunk checksums and enforce quota checks before accepting chunks.

Verification Method: Verify server-side checksum validation, attempt to bypass quotas and confirm appropriate errors returned.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-5

Requirement: Denial of service protection. Protect against resource depletion via throttling and quotas.

Relevance: Large uploads are potential vectors for resource exhaustion; this control supports rate-limiting and quotas to mitigate DoS risks.

Integration Tips: Enforce per-user and global upload rate limits, quotas and concurrent upload limits; monitor upload resource usage for anomalies.

Verification Method: Simulate concurrent large uploads to validate throttling and observe system behavior under stress.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.6.1

Requirement: Ensure that external facing services implementing large file handling are managed and patched and that vulnerabilities are tracked.

Relevance: Governance to ensure upload service components are patched and vulnerabilities in upload libraries/protocols are addressed.

Integration Tips: Include upload handlers in SCA/vulnerability scanning, track CVEs for libraries implementing resumable uploads and schedule patching windows.

Verification Method: Review vulnerability scans, patch records, and confirm components are on supported versions.

Priority: Medium

6.2.7. R7: Web-based task creation, editing, deletion and bulk task operations

OWASP ASVS Controls

V4.2

Requirement: Ensure all task CRUD operations enforce authorization server-side and validate input to prevent injection and business logic abuse.

Relevance: Ensures task operations cannot be performed by unauthorized users and prevents injection/business logic vulnerabilities during CRUD and bulk operations.

Integration Tips: Implement server-side authorization checks per resource, validate/sanitize inputs, implement bulk-operation limits and confirm idempotency or safe rollbacks.

Verification Method: Perform privilege escalation tests, input fuzzing, and bulk operation abuse tests to ensure protections.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

V14.2

Requirement: Implement strong input validation and parameterized queries for APIs that modify tasks (no direct object reference exposure).

Relevance: Prevents injection via task inputs and mitigates insecure direct object reference during task manipulation.

Integration Tips: Use parameterized queries/ORMs, validate IDs and ownership server-side, and avoid exposing raw database keys in UI.

Verification Method: Conduct injection tests, IDOR checks, and review database access patterns for task endpoints.

Level: L1 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AC-6

Requirement: Least privilege. The organization employs the principle of least privilege for users and processes.

Relevance: Applies to limiting which users can create/edit/delete tasks and minimizing permissions required for bulk operations.

Integration Tips: Design roles for minimal required permissions, require elevated approvals for destructive bulk operations, and log all bulk actions.

Verification Method: Review role assignments, attempt to execute operations with minimal privileges, and inspect logs for bulk actions.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.14.2.5

Requirement: Applications accessible from public networks shall be secured to protect data and services.

Relevance: Ensures web-based task operations exposed to networks implement necessary protections and secure coding practices.

Integration Tips: Apply secure development lifecycle controls to task endpoints, enforce API authentication, and ensure proper exposure limits for bulk endpoints.

Verification Method: Code review of task APIs, penetration testing and review of network exposure.

Priority: Medium

6.2.8. R8: Task queue management, prioritization and SLURM-based job submission API

OWASP ASVS Controls

V8.3

Requirement: Ensure job submission APIs enforce authorization, quotas, priority controls and validate job parameters to prevent privilege escalation and resource abuse.

Relevance: Directly targets submission API behavior ensuring it enforces quotas/priorities and validates job parameters to prevent abuse.

Integration Tips: Enforce per-user/group quotas, validate SLURM job parameters server-side, implement priority rules and require admin approval for high-priority jobs.

Verification Method: Attempt to submit jobs with escalated priorities, invalid parameters and observe enforcement of quotas and validation.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

PL-8

Requirement: Information security architecture. Develop and maintain an architecture for the system including interfaces to external schedulers and resource managers.

Relevance: Requires documenting the architecture and interfaces to SLURM/job schedulers to ensure secure design of the submission API and prioritization logic.

Integration Tips: Document API-to-SLURM interactions, threat model scheduler interfaces, and include secure authentication/authorization for submission endpoints.

Verification Method: Review architecture docs, interface diagrams, and threat model outputs for SLURM integration.

Priority: High

CP-2

Requirement: Contingency plan. Develop contingency plans for essential business functions including job processing and queuing.

Relevance: Applicable to ensuring queue management has contingency plans if scheduler or submission APIs fail, preserving availability of job processing.

Integration Tips: Define fallback processing, queue retries, degraded mode behavior and document SLA impacts for scheduler outages.

Verification Method: Run failure scenarios for scheduler unavailability and confirm contingency process works as designed.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1.2

Requirement: Change management procedures shall be followed for system changes including job scheduling interfaces.

Relevance: Ensures changes to scheduling and priority logic are controlled and reviewed to prevent accidental privilege changes or scheduling issues.

Integration Tips: Apply change control to SLURM integration components, include security review for changes to job priorities and scheduling policies.

Verification Method: Review change logs, approvals and test results for updates to scheduling interfaces.

Priority: Medium

6.2.9. R9: Background worker service for HPC communication and job lifecycle management

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10.2

Requirement: Background services should authenticate to backend systems using managed credentials and use encrypted channels; job lifecycle state changes must be logged and validated.

Relevance: Specifies use of managed credentials and logging for lifecycle events — directly applicable to worker services managing jobs.

Integration Tips: Use vault-managed credentials for workers, rotate secrets, implement authenticated service accounts and log all lifecycle events with context.

Verification Method: Review credential usage, test secret rotation, and inspect audit logs for job lifecycle events.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-12

Requirement: Cryptographic protection. The system protects the confidentiality and integrity of remote communications.

Relevance: Background worker communicates with HPC resources; protecting the confidentiality and integrity of these communications is essential.

Integration Tips: Use mutually authenticated TLS for worker-to-HPC communications, ensure keys/certs are managed, and restrict endpoints to known hosts.

Verification Method: Inspect TLS configurations, validate mutual authentication, and capture traffic to confirm encryption.

Priority: Critical

AU-12

Requirement: Audit generation. The information system can produce audit records for defined events including job lifecycle changes.

Relevance: Ensures lifecycle events generated by workers are auditable for troubleshooting and compliance.

Integration Tips: Log job state transitions with timestamps, user/service identity and relevant metadata; centralize logs and secure them.

Verification Method: Inspect audit log contents for job lifecycle events and verify log integrity protection.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.4.1

Requirement: Access to systems and services shall be restricted based on business and security requirements.

Relevance: Applies to limiting worker service access to only required HPC resources and controlling permissions to execute lifecycle operations.

Integration Tips: Define least privilege roles for worker service accounts, use network segmentation to limit access, and enforce ACLs on HPC endpoints.

Verification Method: Review service account permissions, run access scans and attempt unauthorized operations from worker context.

Priority: High

6.2.10. R10: REST API endpoints for submitting and managing jobs via SLURM

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.1

Requirement: Use strong authentication and authorization for API endpoints; protect APIs with TLS and ensure proper rate-limiting and input validation.

Relevance: Directly relevant to REST endpoints for SLURM: enforce TLS, authentication and input validation to prevent misuse and injection.

Integration Tips: Require token-based auth (OAuth2/JWT), validate all job submission parameters server-side, and enforce TLS with proper cert management.

Verification Method: Test auth enforcement, validate TLS and attempt injection or malformed parameter submissions.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AC-3

Requirement: Access enforcement. The information system enforces access restrictions for users and processes to objects.

Relevance: Mandates enforcement of access controls for job resources and management operations via REST APIs.

Integration Tips: Apply server-side ACL checks for job resources, implement role checks for job management APIs and log enforcement decisions.

Verification Method: Attempt unauthorized access and verify API rejects requests; review enforcement logs.

Priority: High

SI-10

Requirement: Information input validation. The system checks the validity of inputs to interfaces.

Relevance: Mandates input validation for API parameters to prevent injection, malformed job definitions or resource abuse via REST endpoints.

Integration Tips: Define strict schemas for job submission payloads, validate ranges/values, and perform type and semantic validation before forwarding to SLURM.

Verification Method: Run fuzzing and schema-based tests against submission endpoints and verify rejection of invalid inputs.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.14.2.1

Requirement: Security requirements of information systems shall be specified and implemented for APIs including testing.

Relevance: Requires documenting and testing security requirements for SLURM submission APIs as part of secure development lifecycle.

Integration Tips: Define API security requirements, incorporate automated tests for auth/validation, and include these in CI pipelines.

Verification Method: Review requirements artifacts and CI test results validating API security.

Priority: Medium

6.2.11. R11: Web API for programming FPGAs (bitfile deployment) and UART integration

OWASP ASVS Controls

V12.1

Requirement: APIs that control hardware must enforce strict authentication, authorization and non-repudiation; ensure integrity of bitfiles and secure transport to device.

Relevance: Directly applicable: hardware programming APIs are high-risk and must ensure bitfile integrity, strong auth and non-repudiation to avoid malicious firmware deployment.

Integration Tips: Sign bitfiles and verify signatures before deployment, require elevated/role-based approval for programming operations, and use secure channels (mutual TLS) to device endpoints.

Verification Method: Verify signature verification, simulate unauthorized programming attempts, and audit bitfile deployment logs.

Level: L3 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

CM-3

Requirement: Baseline configuration. Establish and maintain baseline configurations and inventories for hardware and firmware.

Relevance: Mandates maintaining baselines for FPGA firmware and hardware configuration, which supports safe deployments and rollback capabilities.

Integration Tips: Maintain inventory of FPGA devices and bitfile versions, enforce baseline checks before deployment, and enable rollback to known-good bitfiles.

Verification Method: Inspect inventory, baseline configuration records and test rollbacks.

Priority: High

MP-6

Requirement: Media sanitization and protection for removable media and firmware images.

Relevance: Applies to protection of firmware/bitfile artifacts stored or transported to devices; ensures proper media handling and sanitization if needed.

Integration Tips: Protect bitfile storage with encryption, control access, and ensure removal/sanitization processes for devices before redeployment.

Verification Method: Inspect storage protections, encryption status, and sanitization logs for device media.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.2.6

Requirement: Access rights shall be reviewed when job roles change, especially for hardware controllers.

Relevance: Applies to ensuring only authorized personnel can initiate FPGA programming and access UART interfaces; access must be adjusted with role changes.

Integration Tips: Require approval workflows and periodic reviews for access to FPGA programming functions; strip rights when roles change.

Verification Method: Review access control lists and recent access entitlement changes for FPGA controllers.

Priority: High

6.2.12. R12: Live log streaming and log storage with export (PDF/CSV/TXT)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V11.2

Requirement: Ensure logs are captured securely, transmitted with integrity protection, and that streaming of logs uses authenticated channels and protects sensitive content.

Relevance: Directly applies to live log streaming — requires secure transport, authentication, and protection of sensitive log content during streaming and storage.

Integration Tips: Use authenticated, encrypted channels for log streaming (TLS), classify and redact sensitive log fields before export, and limit export formats to approved tools/processes.

Verification Method: Capture streaming traffic to verify encryption, audit logs for integrity metadata, and test export redaction rules.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-2

Requirement: Audit events. Determine and document auditable events including system and user actions and ensure logs record sufficient information.

Relevance: Specifies the need to capture relevant events for streaming and storage, ensuring exports contain required audit details for compliance/troubleshooting.

Integration Tips: Define auditable events for streaming/export, include timestamps/user context, and ensure exports redact or exclude sensitive data as required.

Verification Method: Review log schema, check that exports contain required fields, and validate completeness via sample forensic scenarios.

Priority: Critical

AU-9

Requirement: Protection of audit information. Protect audit records from unauthorized access, modification, and deletion.

Relevance: Ensures log storage and exports are protected from tampering and unauthorized access, crucial for forensic integrity.

Integration Tips: Implement WORM or write-protected storage for critical logs, enforce strict ACLs, and use checksums/digital signatures on archived logs.

Verification Method: Attempt unauthorized modifications in test environment, verify logs include integrity checks and access controls.

Priority: Critical

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.4.1

Requirement: Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events shall be produced and retained.

Relevance: Mandates log retention and production of events for auditing, applying to stored logs and exported outputs.

Integration Tips: Define retention policies for logs, secure storage with access controls, and include retention periods meeting regulatory/compliance needs.

Verification Method: Review retention policy and verify logs older/within expected retention are available and secured.

Priority: High

6.2.13. R13: GitHub OAuth integration, repo/branch selection UI and webhook-driven automated builds

OWASP ASVS Controls

V2.1

Requirement: Verify that authentication mechanisms use secure, industry standard protocols (e.g., SAML, OAuth2, OpenID Connect) for single sign-on and federation.

Relevance: Directly relevant to GitHub OAuth integration: requires using OAuth2 securely for authorization flows and token handling.

Integration Tips: Use standard OAuth flows with state parameter, validate token scopes, store tokens securely in vaults, and restrict token lifetime where possible.

Verification Method: Review OAuth app settings, test authorization code flow, and inspect token scopes and revocation handling.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

V10.3

Requirement: Validate and authorize incoming webhook requests (verify signatures), and ensure build triggers are authenticated and validated before executing actions.

Relevance: Specifically addresses webhook security for automated builds: verify signatures and authenticate triggers to prevent malicious build triggers.

Integration Tips: Validate X-Hub-Signature/X-Hub-Signature-256 or equivalent for webhook payloads, register webhook secrets, and require explicit mapping from repo to allowed actions.

Verification Method: Send forged webhook payloads and confirm they are rejected; inspect webhook handling logs for signature validation.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SA-9

Requirement: External systems and services shall be documented and security controls validated when integrating third-party services.

Relevance: Mandates validation and documentation when integrating third-party services such as GitHub and Webhooks, ensuring risks are assessed.

Integration Tips: Document the GitHub integration, validate webhook security (signature verification), and include third-party risks in supplier analysis.

Verification Method: Review integration documentation, validate webhook signatures and test reaction to tampered webhooks.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.15.1.1

Requirement: Information security requirements for mitigating risks from supplier access, including third-party code repositories, shall be established.

Relevance: Governance control for third-party access like GitHub, ensuring contractual and security requirements for repo access and webhooks.

Integration Tips: Ensure contracts/agreements include security clauses, restrict repo access to least privilege, and monitor third-party events.

Verification Method: Review supplier agreements and access lists for GitHub integrations and confirm monitoring is enabled.

Priority: Medium

6.2.14. R14: Linking builds to specific commits and PRs with commit metadata display

OWASP ASVS Controls

V11.1

Requirement: Capture sufficient metadata for build provenance (commit SHA, author, timestamp) and ensure integrity of links between builds and source control.

Relevance: Directly requires capture and integrity protection of commit metadata associated with builds to prevent tampering or mismatches.

Integration Tips: Record immutable metadata for each build, sign build records or use checksums linking artifacts to commits, and prevent edit of provenance information in UI.

Verification Method: Verify build records’ metadata signatures/checksums and attempt to tamper with metadata to test detection.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

CM-8

Requirement: System component inventory. Track and maintain information on components including versions and changes.

Relevance: Mandates tracking of components/versions — mapping to commits and PRs is core to maintaining provenance and inventory for builds.

Integration Tips: Store commit SHA, author and PR metadata with build records; include mechanisms to verify commit integrity and maintain a searchable inventory.

Verification Method: Inspect inventory records and confirm builds link to correct commit SHAs and metadata.

Priority: High

SI-7

Requirement: Software, firmware, and information integrity checks to ensure authenticity and integrity.

Relevance: Applies to verifying integrity of artifacts linked to commits; ensures artifacts correspond to authentic source control data.

Integration Tips: Use signed commits/tags where possible, verify signatures or checksums of source and built artifacts, and store integrity evidence with builds.

Verification Method: Validate artifact checksums against recorded commit data and verify signature chains if used.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.2.1

Requirement: Control changes to systems and maintain records of changes including version details and responsible parties.

Relevance: Supports change control and recording of commits/PRs associated with builds to maintain accountability and traceability.

Integration Tips: Include commit/PR linkage in change control records and ensure responsible parties are logged for each build and deployment.

Verification Method: Review change logs linking builds to commits and confirm responsible parties are recorded.

Priority: Medium

6.2.15. R15: In-app, email and optional browser push notifications with user preferences

OWASP ASVS Controls

V13.4

Requirement: Protect personal data in notifications and ensure opt-in/opt-out preferences are persisted and enforced.

Relevance: Specifically addresses protecting personal data in notifications and enforcement of user preferences required for notifications.

Integration Tips: Avoid leaking PII in push/email subject lines, ensure templates redact sensitive info and enforce preference checks server-side prior to sending.

Verification Method: Inspect sent notification samples for PII leakage and test that opt-outs prevent delivery.

Level: L1 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

PL-8

Requirement: Information security architecture. Plan for privacy and notification channels in system architecture.

Relevance: Encourages inclusion of notification channel security in architecture planning to ensure correct protections across in-app/email/push.

Integration Tips: Architect separate channels with appropriate protections (TLS for push, secure SMTP/TLS for email), and centralize preference evaluation before dispatch.

Verification Method: Review architecture artifacts and ensure channel protections are implemented and documented.

Priority: Medium

AC-14

Requirement: Permitted actions without identification or authentication. The system restricts actions that unauthenticated users can perform, including receiving or controlling notifications.

Relevance: Ensures that control over notification preferences or delivery requires appropriate authentication to prevent abuse or unwanted changes.

Integration Tips: Require authentication for preference management and for changing delivery endpoints, and verify ownership before altering notification targets.

Verification Method: Attempt unauthorized preference changes and confirm system blocks them.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.18.1.4

Requirement: Ensure compliance with data protection laws and user preferences for notifications and communications.

Relevance: Ensures notification channels respect user privacy preferences and compliance obligations (e.g., opt-in for certain notifications).

Integration Tips: Store and enforce user preferences, avoid including sensitive data in notifications, and ensure opt-in/opt-out mechanisms are auditable.

Verification Method: Review preference storage, test opt-out flows, and perform privacy impact assessment for notification content.

Priority: High

6.2.16. R16: Reporting and analytics dashboard with charts, trends and exportable reports

OWASP ASVS Controls

V11.3

Requirement: Ensure analytics pipelines protect confidentiality of sensitive data, apply aggregation/anonymization where needed and secure export functions.

Relevance: Directly applies by requiring anonymization/aggregation and secure exports to prevent leakage of sensitive information in reports.

Integration Tips: Apply field-level redaction, role-based report access, and encrypt exported reports at rest and in transit.

Verification Method: Review sample exports for PII, test access controls, and verify export encryption.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-6

Requirement: Audit review, analysis, and reporting. Regularly review and analyze audit records for indications of inappropriate activity.

Relevance: Relevant to analytics pipelines that could aggregate sensitive operational/audit data; ensures analysis is accurate and secure.

Integration Tips: Control access to analytics data, anonymize/summarize where necessary, and audit analysts’ access to raw datasets.

Verification Method: Review audit of analytics access and validate anonymization/aggregation safeguards.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.18.1.3

Requirement: Records shall be protected from loss, destruction and falsification and shall be retained as required.

Relevance: Ensures reports and analytics artifacts are protected, retained properly, and protected from tampering.

Integration Tips: Apply role-based access to reports, protect report exports, and implement integrity checks and retention aligned with policy.

Verification Method: Review retention and protection configurations and attempt to alter stored reports.

Priority: High

A.8.2.3

Requirement: Information shall be classified to indicate the value, sensitivity and criticality of the information assets.

Relevance: Classifying data informs what can be displayed in analytics and what must be masked or aggregated.

Integration Tips: Classify datasets used for analytics and enforce controls based on classification for display and export.

Verification Method: Check classification labels for datasets and sample enforcement in analytics outputs.

Priority: Medium

6.2.17. R17: Build artifact storage, download, retention policies and artifact versioning

OWASP ASVS Controls

V13.1

Requirement: Implement secure file storage and access controls including versioning metadata and integrity checks for artifacts.

Relevance: Directly relevant to artifact storage — mandates secure storage, version metadata, and integrity checks for download/retention.

Integration Tips: Use encrypted storage, maintain immutable version metadata and checksums, apply ACLs for downloads and automate retention/expiry policies.

Verification Method: Attempt to access artifacts without authorization, verify checksums, and inspect retention purge processes.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

MP-4

Requirement: Media storage. Protect stored information system media; sanitize, store and transport media securely.

Relevance: Applies to artifact media protection, storage controls and secure transport for downloads.

Integration Tips: Encrypt artifacts at rest and in transit, control export interfaces, and implement physical protections for offline media.

Verification Method: Inspect encryption at rest, transport security for downloads, and attempt unauthorized media retrieval.

Priority: High

CP-9

Requirement: Information system backup. Conduct backups of user-level and system-level information to support recovery.

Relevance: Backup supports retention and recovery for artifacts and version history in case of data loss.

Integration Tips: Implement redundant backups for artifact storage, protect backups, and test restore procedures regularly.

Verification Method: Test restore of artifact versions from backups and verify integrity.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.11.2.2

Requirement: Security controls for equipment and storage to prevent unauthorized access to information.

Relevance: Supports physical/environmental protections that may apply to artifact storage hardware.

Integration Tips: Ensure data centers and storage locations meet physical security standards and include artifact storage in maintenance plans.

Verification Method: Review physical security controls and maintenance logs for storage equipment.

Priority: Medium

6.2.18. R18: Audit trail and task history for compliance and troubleshooting

OWASP ASVS Controls

V11.4

Requirement: Ensure audit trails are tamper-evident, searchable and contain sufficient context for forensics and compliance.

Relevance: Ensures that audit trails for tasks are protected against tampering and usable for compliance investigations.

Integration Tips: Store logs in an append-only/separately controlled system, index for search and enforce retention and access controls.

Verification Method: Attempt log tampering in a controlled test, verify tamper detection and searchability.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AU-2

Requirement: Audit events. Determine and document auditable events including system and user actions and ensure logs record sufficient information.

Relevance: Directly requires determining auditable events which is foundational for audit trails and task history capture.

Integration Tips: Define events to capture (task create/update/delete, executor actions), include user/service identity, timestamps and context in logs.

Verification Method: Inspect log entries for required event fields and perform sample investigations to validate sufficiency.

Priority: Critical

AU-6

Requirement: Audit review, analysis, and reporting. Regularly review and analyze audit records for indications of inappropriate activity.

Relevance: Mandates regular review of audit trails to detect misuse and support troubleshooting of task history issues.

Integration Tips: Build alerting around suspicious activity patterns, schedule periodic log reviews and integrate SIEM for analysis.

Verification Method: Verify review schedules, alert rules, and SIEM correlation outputs for task-related events.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.4.3

Requirement: Administrator and operator activities shall be logged and monitored to support investigations and accountability.

Relevance: Applies to logging of admin/operator actions in task histories for accountability and compliance.

Integration Tips: Ensure admin actions on tasks are separately logged with elevated detail and reviewed periodically.

Verification Method: Review admin logs and confirm entries include necessary context for each action.

Priority: High

6.2.19. R19: Web-based administration panel for system configuration and health checks

OWASP ASVS Controls

V4.3

Requirement: Administrative interfaces must be protected with multi-factor authentication, strict RBAC, and audited access.

Relevance: Administration panel requires strong protections (MFA/RBAC) to prevent unauthorized configuration changes and maintain security.

Integration Tips: Require MFA for admin accounts, enforce least-privilege roles for admin functions and log all admin activity with alerts for unusual access.

Verification Method: Attempt admin access without MFA, test role boundaries and review admin audit logs.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AC-17

Requirement: Remote access. The organization authorizes, monitors, and controls remote access methods including administrative interfaces.

Relevance: Controls remote admin access to the panel ensuring authorized, monitored connectivity and secure methods.

Integration Tips: Restrict remote admin access via VPN/jump hosts, apply network ACLs and monitor connections to admin endpoints.

Verification Method: Review remote access controls and attempt remote admin access from unauthorized networks.

Priority: High

SI-4

Requirement: Information system monitoring. The system monitors events and notifications for indications of attack or compromise.

Relevance: Health checks and monitoring exposed via admin panel must be monitored for indications of misuse or attacks.

Integration Tips: Ensure health endpoints require auth, return limited info to callers, and feed health metrics into monitoring/alerting systems.

Verification Method: Review health endpoint authentication, check monitoring integrations, and test alert triggers.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.9.4.3

Requirement: Where password management systems are used, secure procedures shall be implemented.

Relevance: Supports secure credential management for admin accounts and password usage in admin panel.

Integration Tips: Use enterprise password managers for admin credentials, require rotation and protect secrets with vaults and MFA.

Verification Method: Inspect password management usage and policies for admin accounts.

Priority: Medium

6.2.20. R20: Containerized deployment (Docker) and automated provisioning/upgrades via Ansible

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10.4

Requirement: Ensure container images are built from trusted sources, scanned for vulnerabilities, and runtime configurations minimize privileges.

Relevance: Directly addresses secure container build, scanning and runtime hardening — critical for Docker-based deployment.

Integration Tips: Use image scanning in build pipeline, enforce non-root containers, restrict capabilities and use resource limits and read-only filesystems.

Verification Method: Check CI/CD pipeline scans, inspect running container configs for dropped capabilities and non-root execution.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

CM-2

Requirement: Baseline configuration. Develop and maintain baseline configurations and inventories for systems and components, including container images.

Relevance: Requires baselining container images and inventories to ensure secure configurations for Docker and automated provisioning.

Integration Tips: Maintain a catalog of approved container images, define hardened base images, and enforce image signing and provenance checks in CI/CD.

Verification Method: Review image inventory, baseline configs and confirm image promotion/pipeline enforces sign/scan steps.

Priority: High

SA-8

Requirement: Security engineering principles shall be integrated into system acquisition and development, including automation tooling.

Relevance: Promotes secure engineering for provisioning tools and deployment pipelines (Ansible), ensuring security is built into automation.

Integration Tips: Apply secure coding and parameterize secrets in Ansible, validate playbooks for safe operations and restrict playbook access.

Verification Method: Review playbook repository controls, code reviews of provisioning scripts and test runs in staging.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.6.1

Requirement: Ensure that vulnerabilities in software and containers are tracked and remediated in a timely manner.

Relevance: Governs the vulnerability management processes for container images and automation tooling like Ansible.

Integration Tips: Integrate SCA and image CVE scanning, track vulnerabilities in a ticketing system and schedule patching for base images and Ansible modules.

Verification Method: Review vulnerability tracker, patch timelines and evidence of remediated container issues.

Priority: High

6.2.21. R21: Database backup/restore via web interface and health endpoints for monitoring

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10.5

Requirement: Health endpoints and admin interfaces should require authentication, return minimal information and be monitored; backup/restore operations should be access-controlled and logged.

Relevance: Specifies that backup/restore via web UI must be access-controlled, audited, and health endpoints limited in information exposure.

Integration Tips: Require MFA for restore operations, log all restore actions, limit health endpoint verbosity and monitor for anomalous health queries.

Verification Method: Test unauthorized restore attempts, review health endpoint responses and check restore logs.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

CP-9

Requirement: Information system backup. Conduct backups of user-level and system-level information to support recovery.

Relevance: Directly applies to backup/restore requirements: ensures backups are performed and usable to restore databases when needed.

Integration Tips: Implement automated backups, test restores regularly, encrypt backups and restrict access to the restore functionality via RBAC and MFA.

Verification Method: Run restore exercises and review backup logs and encryption status.

Priority: Critical

AU-8

Requirement: Time stamps. Use internal system clocks to provide reliable time stamps for audit records (important for backups/restores logging).

Relevance: Ensures that backup/restore auditing includes reliable timestamps for forensic and recovery ordering.

Integration Tips: Use synchronized NTP sources and include verifiable timestamps in backup metadata and restore logs.

Verification Method: Check timestamp consistency in backup logs and restore records across systems.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.17.1.2

Requirement: Information security continuity should be embedded in business continuity management and include backup and restoration procedures.

Relevance: Requires embedding backup/restore operations into continuity plans, including security aspects for web-initiated restores.

Integration Tips: Document backup/restore procedures in BCP, define roles for web-initiated restores and test as part of continuity exercises.

Verification Method: Review BCP documents and results from continuity tests including web-initiated restore workflows.

Priority: Medium

6.2.22. R22: Session security, secure logout and protection against common web threats (CSRF/XSS/Injection)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V2.2

Requirement: Session management must protect session tokens (use secure cookies, HttpOnly, SameSite, and consider session rotation on privilege change).

Relevance: Addresses session token protection and rotation, central to secure logout and prevention of session-related attacks.

Integration Tips: Implement secure cookie attributes, revoke server-side sessions on logout, rotate tokens on privilege change and enforce idle/absolute timeouts.

Verification Method: Test cookie flags, session rotation and logout behavior; attempt session reuse after logout.

Level: L1 | Priority: Critical

V14.1

Requirement: Verify web application is resilient to XSS and that output encoding is used on all UI elements including dashboards and charts.

Relevance: XSS mitigation reduces risk of session token exfiltration and script-based attacks against session state.

Integration Tips: Use output encoding, CSP, and escape user-supplied content; sanitize HTML inputs and limit inline scripts.

Verification Method: Perform XSS testing and CSP analysis on key pages and verify absence of unsafe inline code.

Level: L1 | Priority: Critical

V14.2

Requirement: Implement strong input validation and parameterized queries for APIs that modify tasks (no direct object reference exposure).

Relevance: Input validation and parameterized queries help prevent injection flaws which could compromise session or application integrity.

Integration Tips: Apply input validation across endpoints, use parameterized DB queries/ORM and avoid concatenation of user input into commands.

Verification Method: Conduct injection testing (SQL/command injection) and review query construction patterns.

Level: L1 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

IA-5

Requirement: Authenticator management. Policies for secure management of authentication mechanisms including session termination and reuse prevention.

Relevance: Provides guidance on management of authenticators and termination semantics, useful for secure logout and session lifecycle policies.

Integration Tips: Define authenticator/credential lifecycle policies, enforce session termination on logout and protect reuse with nonce/session identifiers.

Verification Method: Audit authenticator policies and test termination and reuse prevention mechanisms.

Priority: High

6.2.23. R23: Secrets management and secure storage of credentials (HPC, GitHub, FPGA controllers)

OWASP ASVS Controls

V6.3

Requirement: Secrets (API keys, credentials) must be stored encrypted, not in source code, and access controlled (use secret vaults and rotation).

Relevance: Directly relevant: requires usage of secret vaults, encryption at rest and rotation policies for HPC, GitHub tokens and device creds.

Integration Tips: Integrate HashiCorp Vault or cloud KMS, avoid embedding secrets in images, enforce least privilege access to secrets and automated rotation.

Verification Method: Review secret storage implementation, check for hard-coded secrets and test rotation workflows.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

MP-6

Requirement: Media sanitization and protection for removable media and firmware images.

Relevance: Applies to protecting secret-bearing media and ensuring credentials and firmware images are protected from unauthorized retrieval.

Integration Tips: Treat credential stores as sensitive media, encrypt them at rest and ease secure deletion on rotation or decommission.

Verification Method: Inspect storage encryption and sanitation procedures for credential-bearing media.

Priority: High

SC-12

Requirement: Cryptographic protection. The system protects the confidentiality and integrity of remote communications.

Relevance: Supports secure transport of credentials to HPC controllers and FPGA devices using cryptographic protection.

Integration Tips: Use TLS/mTLS for credential transmission, protect keys used for encryption, and apply secure key management processes.

Verification Method: Validate crypto use in transit and encryption key management records.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.10.1.1

Requirement: Policy on the use of cryptographic controls shall be developed and implemented to protect information.

Relevance: Governance requiring cryptographic controls underpin secret storage and usage policies.

Integration Tips: Ensure organization cryptography policy mandates vault use, key rotation, and acceptable algorithms for credential protection.

Verification Method: Review cryptography policy and evidence of enforcement for secret management.

Priority: Medium

6.2.24. R24: Access controls and isolation for FPGA hardware and HPC resources

OWASP ASVS Controls

V12.2

Requirement: Physical and logical isolation must be applied to hardware like FPGAs and HPC resources; ensure RBAC and policy enforcement for device access.

Relevance: Directly calls for physical and logical isolation, role-based access and policy enforcement for hardware resources.

Integration Tips: Segregate hardware on dedicated networks/VLANs, enforce RBAC for device access and apply additional controls such as jump hosts for admin operations.

Verification Method: Verify VLAN segmentation, test access via jump hosts and review RBAC enforcement logs for device access.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

AC-4

Requirement: Information flow enforcement. The system enforces approved authorizations for controlling information flow within the system and between interconnected systems.

Relevance: Ensures that access and information flow to FPGA/HPC devices are restricted to approved flows, preventing unauthorized lateral movement or data exfiltration.

Integration Tips: Implement network segmentation, firewall rules, and strict ACLs to limit flows to device management endpoints and data paths.

Verification Method: Perform network flow analysis and attempt unauthorized flows to verify enforcement.

Priority: Critical

CM-2

Requirement: Baseline configuration. Develop and maintain baseline configurations including device-level access policies.

Relevance: Maintaining baseline device configs helps detect unauthorized changes and ensures isolation settings remain consistent.

Integration Tips: Capture baseline configs for FPGA/HPC nodes and monitor for deviations; enforce configuration drift remediation.

Verification Method: Compare running configs to baselines and report drift for remediation.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.11.1.1

Requirement: Physical security perimeters shall be defined and used to protect information processing facilities and hardware.

Relevance: Applicable where FPGA/HPC hardware are physically located — protects against unauthorized physical access to devices.

Integration Tips: Ensure devices are located in controlled data centers, restrict physical access, and monitor for unauthorized presence.

Verification Method: Inspect physical access controls, badges, CCTV logs and facility policies.

Priority: High

6.2.25. R25: Performance/scalability requirements for concurrent builds and real-time updates

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10.1

Requirement: Real-time features must implement authorization checks server-side and validate messages to prevent injection and flooding attacks.

Relevance: Performance and concurrency must be balanced with security controls to prevent flooding or misuse of real-time updates and builds.

Integration Tips: Implement capacity planning, rate-limiting, connection limits and validate load handling to ensure security controls degrade gracefully under high load.

Verification Method: Perform load and stress tests while monitoring enforcement of authorization and message validation under load.

Level: L2 | Priority: High

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-5

Requirement: Denial of service protection. Protect against resource depletion via throttling and quotas.

Relevance: Specifies protective measures against DoS which are critical for meeting scalability and availability requirements.

Integration Tips: Apply autoscaling policies with resource quotas, implement throttles and queueing, and design graceful degradation for non-critical features.

Verification Method: Conduct DoS/traffic surge tests and validate throttling and recovery mechanisms.

Priority: Critical

CP-10

Requirement: System recovery and reconstitution. Ensure systems can recover from disruptions and scale to meet demand.

Relevance: Addresses recovery/scalability planning to restore service levels after disruption and sustain concurrent builds.

Integration Tips: Design recovery procedures, warm standby capacity, and validate restore and scaling as part of contingency tests.

Verification Method: Run recovery tests and measure time-to-recovery and ability to handle concurrent load.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1.1

Requirement: Operating procedures should be documented for system operation including monitoring interfaces and dashboards.

Relevance: Capacity planning and operational responses should be documented to maintain availability and scalability securely.

Integration Tips: Create capacity/runbooks, include scaling thresholds and incident response steps and coordinate with security monitoring.

Verification Method: Review capacity plans and runbooks and test scaling procedures during drills.

Priority: Medium

6.2.26. R26: Mobile-responsive design for tablets and phones

OWASP ASVS Controls

V14.1

Requirement: Verify web application is resilient to XSS and that output encoding is used on all UI elements including dashboards and charts.

Relevance: Mobile/responsive UIs still present attack surface for XSS; encoding and XSS mitigations remain essential across device types.

Integration Tips: Ensure mobile UI uses same output encoding and CSP policies as desktop, test touch event handling and avoid exposing debug endpoints on mobile.

Verification Method: Run XSS tests on mobile/responsive views and validate CSP effectiveness.

Level: L1 | Priority: High

V14.3

Requirement: Ensure secure configuration of UI frameworks and third-party components used in dashboards (no insecure libraries).

Relevance: Ensures responsive UI frameworks are securely configured and free of vulnerable components across mobile and desktop.

Integration Tips: Audit front-end frameworks, remove unused modules and ensure secure CSP and subresource integrity (SRI) where applicable.

Verification Method: Check SRI/CSP usage and SCA results for front-end dependencies.

Level: L1 | Priority: Medium

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SA-11

Requirement: Developer security testing and evaluation to ensure applications operate securely across devices.

Relevance: Encourages testing across devices/platforms to ensure mobile responsiveness does not introduce security regressions.

Integration Tips: Include mobile/responsive UI in security testing scope, run functional and security tests on major device classes and viewports.

Verification Method: Review test results from multi-device security tests and confirm fixes for identified issues.

Priority: Medium

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.6.2

Requirement: Maintain secure configuration of third-party components including those used for mobile/responsive UI frameworks.

Relevance: Mobile frameworks often rely on third-party libs; this control ensures these are managed and patched to prevent vulnerabilities.

Integration Tips: Track front-end/framework dependencies, patch vulnerabilities and verify compatibility across devices before deployment.

Verification Method: Review SCA reports for front-end libs and confirm remediation of identified issues.

Priority: Medium

6.2.27. R27: Rate-limiting and abuse prevention for APIs and uploads

OWASP ASVS Controls

V5.1

Requirement: Implement rate limiting and quotas on APIs and upload endpoints to protect against abuse and resource exhaustion.

Relevance: Directly applicable to preventing abuse of APIs and upload endpoints via throttling, quotas and limiting strategies.

Integration Tips: Implement per-user and per-IP quotas, burst rate limiting, global and endpoint-specific thresholds and provide meaningful rejection responses.

Verification Method: Run automated load tests to verify rate limits trigger and measure enforcement behavior.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SC-5

Requirement: Denial of service protection. Protect against resource depletion via throttling and quotas.

Relevance: Reinforces need for DoS protections via throttling to prevent resource exhaustion from abusive API or upload activity.

Integration Tips: Deploy DDoS protection services, use connection limits and monitoring to detect abnormal traffic patterns and enforce throttles.

Verification Method: Simulate abusive traffic patterns and confirm DoS protections mitigate impact.

Priority: High

AC-17

Requirement: Remote access. The organization authorizes, monitors, and controls remote access methods including APIs.

Relevance: Helps ensure API access is controlled and monitored in addition to rate limiting to prevent abuse from remote actors.

Integration Tips: Monitor API usage, require authentication for sensitive endpoints and combine rate limits with access controls.

Verification Method: Review access logs and rate-limit enforcement along with monitoring alerts for abuse patterns.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.1.3

Requirement: Capacity requirements and planning shall be performed to ensure availability and performance.

Relevance: Capacity planning supports rate-limiting policies and ensures quotas are set to maintain availability under load.

Integration Tips: Define capacity thresholds and adjust quotas according to operational limits; incorporate scaling strategies to handle bursts.

Verification Method: Review capacity planning docs and verify quotas are aligned with capacity tests.

Priority: Medium

6.2.28. R28: Monitoring, alerting, and vulnerability/patch management processes

OWASP ASVS Controls

V10.6

Requirement: Establish monitoring, alerting and patch management processes to detect and remediate vulnerabilities and incidents.

Relevance: Mandates establishing monitoring/alerting and patch management processes to ensure continuous detection and remediation.

Integration Tips: Deploy centralized monitoring, configure alerts for critical events, integrate patch management automation and validate patching in staging before production.

Verification Method: Review monitoring/alert rules, check incident response times and patch rollout records.

Level: L2 | Priority: Critical

NIST SP 800-53 Controls

SI-2

Requirement: Flaw remediation. Identify, report, and correct information system flaws in a timely manner.

Relevance: Directly targets vulnerability identification and remediation processes for application and infrastructure components.

Integration Tips: Establish ticket-driven remediation workflows, prioritize vulnerabilities by risk, and track time-to-remediate metrics.

Verification Method: Inspect vulnerability tracking system and verify remediation timelines and evidence of fixes.

Priority: Critical

CA-7

Requirement: Continuous monitoring. Implement ongoing assessment and monitoring to ensure security posture remains acceptable.

Relevance: Mandates continuous monitoring to detect deviations and support alerting and remediation processes.

Integration Tips: Integrate telemetry into SIEM, define KPIs for security posture and schedule continuous scans and assessments.

Verification Method: Review SIEM dashboards, continuous monitoring reports and evidence of action on detected issues.

Priority: High

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

A.12.6.1

Requirement: Ensure that vulnerabilities are identified and timely remediation occurs.

Relevance: ISO-level governance for vulnerability management ensuring organizational adherence and recordkeeping.

Integration Tips: Define vulnerability lifecycle, ownership, SLA for fixes and maintain scheduled scanning and reporting.

Verification Method: Review vulnerability management metrics, scan schedules and SLA compliance.

Priority: High

6.3. Cross-Functional Security Controls

The following controls apply globally across all system components:

Logging and Audit Trails

Description: Centralized, tamper-evident logging of authentication, authorization, job lifecycle events, admin actions, file operations and system health; includes integrity protection and retention policies.

Applies to: All requirements (authentication, RBAC, APIs, workers, hardware control, backups, admin panel, uploads, logs, monitoring)

Implementation Guidance: Implement centralized logging (SIEM), use append-only storage or signed logs, enforce retention/archival policies, ensure logs include user/service identity, timestamps and correlation IDs. Protect logs with access controls and monitor for anomalous patterns.

Encryption (At-rest and In-transit)

Description: Protect sensitive data, secrets, artifacts and communications using organization-approved cryptographic algorithms and key management.

Applies to: Session tokens, API traffic (WebSockets/SSE), artifact storage, secrets management, backups, worker-to-HPC communication, webhooks and device programming

Implementation Guidance: Enforce TLS (strong ciphers) for all transport; encrypt storage volumes and sensitive fields; manage keys with a KMS or HSM; apply mutual TLS for service-to-service/device links and rotate keys/secrets regularly.

Access Control and Least Privilege

Description: Enforce RBAC, least privilege for users and services, and server-side authorization checks across all APIs, admin UIs, and device controls.

Applies to: RBAC, admin panel, API endpoints, FPGA/HPC access, background workers, artifact downloads, backups

Implementation Guidance: Implement centralized IAM, map AD groups to roles, enforce server-side checks, require MFA for privileged operations, and run periodic access reviews and entitlement audits.

Secure Development and Dependency Management

Description: Secure coding practices, SCA/SBOM for dependencies, vulnerability scanning in CI/CD, and secure configuration of frameworks and containers.

Applies to: All web UIs, APIs, containers, provisioning scripts, mobile/responsive code and third-party integrations

Implementation Guidance: Integrate SCA into CI pipelines, maintain SBOMs, scan and patch dependencies, enforce secure defaults in containers and perform application security testing (DAST/SAST) before release.

Rate Limiting, Quotas and DoS Protections

Description: Protect APIs, upload endpoints and real-time channels from abuse with rate limiting, quotas, and DDoS mitigation strategies.

Applies to: APIs, uploads, real-time updates, build submission endpoints

Implementation Guidance: Implement per-user / per-IP limits, global quotas, WAF rules and DDoS services; monitor and tune thresholds based on capacity planning and apply graceful degradation policies.

6.4. Requirements Traceability Overview

This section demonstrates complete traceability from high-level requirements through threats to security controls and verification methods.

Coverage Summary: Traceability matrix contains 28 requirements. 28 requirements (100.0%) linked to threats. 24 requirements (85.7%) mapped to security controls (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001). Coverage: Partial.

Sample Traceability Mappings

The following table shows traceability for high-priority requirements:

Req ID	Requirement	Threats	Security Controls	Standards	Priority	Verification
REQ-001	Active Directory single sign-on (SSO) in…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review documented procedures, check enforcement of secure logon (MFA, session policies), and interview administrators about SSO process.
REQ-002	Role-based access control (RBAC) with co…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Conduct authorization tests, attempt privilege escalation, and review access control checks across endpoints.
REQ-003	User profile management allowing users t…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review documented procedures, check enforcement of secure logon (MFA, session policies), and interview administrators about SSO process.
REQ-004	Responsive web dashboard for monitoring …	7 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review documentation, run operational drills, and verify staff adherence to procedures.
REQ-005	Real-time client updates using WebSocket…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Inspect TLS configuration, attempt unauthorized channel access, review token usage on handshake, and test Origin header validation.
REQ-006	Interactive file browser with upload (dr…	9 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review policies, confirm operational controls enforce policies, and test adherence with sample transfers.
REQ-008	Web-based creation, editing, deletion of…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Code review of task APIs, penetration testing and review of network exposure.
REQ-009	Task lifecycle management with status tr…	7 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Review admin logs and confirm entries include necessary context for each action.
REQ-010	Task queue management with priorities, s…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Run failure scenarios for scheduler unavailability and confirm contingency process works as designed.
REQ-011	Background worker service(s) responsible…	10 threats	4 controls	ISO27001, NIST, OWASP	Critical	Inspect TLS configurations, validate mutual authentication, and capture traffic to confirm encryption.

Showing 10 of 28 requirements. See Appendix D for complete traceability matrix.

Traceability Statistics

• Total Requirements Tracked: 28
• Requirements Linked to Threats: 28 (100.0%)
• Requirements Mapped to Controls: 24 (85.7%)
• Average Controls per Requirement: 3.4
• Control Distribution by Standard:
  • NIST SP 800-53: 38 controls
  • OWASP ASVS: 32 controls
  • ISO 27001: 26 controls
• Verification Coverage: 100% (all requirements have verification methods)

---

7. AI/ML Security Requirements

This section addresses security requirements specific to artificial intelligence and machine learning components within the system. AI/ML systems introduce unique security challenges including prompt injection attacks, data poisoning, model theft, adversarial inputs, and bias vulnerabilities. This analysis identifies AI/ML components, assesses their security risks, and prescribes specialized controls to protect both the AI systems themselves and the data they process.

7.1. AI/ML Components Detected

This section identifies all AI/ML components within the system that require specialized security controls.

1. Automated Build Triggering: Integrates with GitHub to automatically initiate builds based on commits and pull requests, which may involve processing input data and triggering related AI/ML workflows.
2. Real-time Status Updates: Utilizes WebSockets or Server-Sent Events to push build status updates to the web interface, potentially leveraging ML models for intelligent notifications.
3. Interactive Reporting & Analytics: Generates build statistics and performance metrics, which may involve machine learning algorithms to analyze trends and predict future build outcomes.

7.2. AI/ML Threat Model

Component	Identified Threats
Automated Build Triggering	- Prompt injection
	- Data leakage from training data
	- Model inversion attacks
Real-time Status Updates	- Adversarial inputs
	- Data leakage through status updates
Interactive Reporting & Analytics	- Model poisoning
	- Bias and fairness issues

7.3. AI/ML Security Controls

Automated Build Triggering

• Prompt Injection Prevention: Implement strict input validation and sanitization for build triggers to prevent malicious code from being executed during automated builds.
• Data Leakage Prevention: Ensure that sensitive data (e.g., PII) is not included in training data or prompts used in automated processes.
• Model Access Controls: Restrict access to the model interfaces through RBAC, ensuring only authorized personnel can trigger builds and interact with AI components.

Real-time Status Updates

• Output Filtering and Sanitization: Apply sanitization measures on real-time updates to prevent injection attacks or the exposure of sensitive information through status messages.
• Monitoring for Adversarial Inputs: Implement logging and monitoring tools to detect and respond to unusual patterns in status updates that may indicate adversarial attacks.

Interactive Reporting & Analytics

• Rate Limiting and Abuse Prevention: Enforce rate limits on API calls related to reporting and analytics to mitigate abuse and potential DDoS attacks.
• Bias and Fairness Considerations: Regularly audit models for bias and ensure fairness in reporting metrics, particularly when generating analytics that could influence decision-making.

7.4. Integration with Existing Security Controls

The AI/ML security controls proposed above integrate with standard security practices such as: - Session Security: Maintaining secure sessions and implementing secure logout procedures ensures that AI/ML components are accessed only by authenticated users. - Input Validation: Existing input validation measures for user data should extend to inputs processed by AI components. - Monitoring and Alerting: Incorporate AI/ML monitoring requirements into broader system monitoring protocols to ensure that potential threats are identified and responded to in real-time.

7.5. AI/ML Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring Area	Description
Input Validation Logs	Monitor logs for invalid or suspicious input patterns that could indicate prompt injection attempts.
Model Performance Metrics	Continuously track model performance and accuracy to identify potential model poisoning or degradation.
Status Update Anomalies	Alert on unusual patterns in real-time status updates that may suggest adversarial behavior.
Access Control Audits	Regular audits of access logs to ensure only authorized users interact with AI/ML components.

---

8. Compliance Requirements

This section identifies regulatory and legal compliance obligations applicable to the system based on data types, geographic scope, industry sector, and business operations. Compliance requirements drive specific security controls, data handling procedures, audit capabilities, and privacy protections. Non-compliance can result in significant legal penalties, reputational damage, and business disruption. This analysis maps applicable regulations to specific security requirements and operational procedures.

8.1. Applicable Regulations

The regulations applicable to the CI Build Automation Tool were identified based on the types of data processed (e.g., personal data, health data), geographic scope (e.g., European Union, California), industry sector (e.g., technology, healthcare), and business operations (e.g., cloud computing, job submission to HPC servers). Compliance requirements directly impact security controls, data handling procedures, and operational processes, ensuring that the application adheres to legal obligations and protects user privacy. Below is a summary of the regulations that apply to the application:

Regulation	Applicability Reason
GDPR	Applies because the system processes personal data of EU residents.
CCPA	Applies due to the collection of personal data from California residents.
HIPAA	Relevant if any health information is processed or transmitted.
PCI-DSS	Applicable if payment card data is handled for any transactions.
SOX	Relevant due to the need for financial data management and reporting.
GLBA	Applies as the application may handle sensitive financial information.
COPPA	Relevant if the application collects data from children under 13.
Data Residency Laws	Applies based on geographic data storage and processing requirements.

8.2. Compliance Controls by Regulation

GDPR

• Implement data encryption both in transit and at rest.
• Establish a data protection officer role.
• Ensure user consent is obtained before processing personal data.
• Implement data minimization practices.

CCPA

• Provide clear notices about data collection practices.
• Allow users to opt-out of the sale of their personal data.
• Implement a process for data access requests.

HIPAA

• Ensure data encryption and access controls are in place for health data.
• Conduct regular risk assessments of health information handling.
• Provide training for employees on HIPAA compliance.

PCI-DSS

• Implement network security controls to protect cardholder data.
• Conduct regular vulnerability scans and penetration tests.
• Maintain a secure application development lifecycle.

SOX

• Ensure proper documentation and reporting of financial data.
• Implement controls for data integrity and access management.

GLBA

• Maintain privacy notices regarding the sharing of nonpublic personal information.
• Implement safeguards to protect customer information.

COPPA

• Obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting information from children.
• Provide clear privacy notices aimed at parents.

8.3. Data Subject Rights

Right	Description
Right to Access	Users can request access to their personal data and obtain a copy.
Right to Rectification	Users can request corrections to inaccurate or incomplete data.
Right to Erasure	Users can request deletion of their personal data under certain conditions.
Right to Restrict Processing	Users can request the limitation of processing their data.
Right to Data Portability	Users can request their data in a structured, commonly used format.
Right to Object	Users can object to the processing of their data for certain purposes.

8.4. Privacy Requirements

Consent: Users must provide explicit consent before their personal data is processed.
Privacy Notice: A clear and concise privacy notice must be provided to users detailing data collection, usage, and sharing practices.
Data Security: Implement technical and organizational measures to protect personal data from unauthorized access or breaches.

8.5. Audit and Monitoring Requirements

Logging: Maintain detailed logs of user activity, data access, and system changes for audit purposes.
Monitoring: Conduct regular monitoring of systems for compliance with security controls and data protection measures.
Incident Response: Develop an incident response plan to address potential data breaches or compliance failures.

8.6. Data Handling Rules

Retention: Personal data should only be retained as long as necessary for its intended purpose and in compliance with regulatory requirements.
Deletion: Establish procedures for the secure deletion of personal data when it is no longer needed.
Access Control: Implement strict access control measures to limit data access to authorized personnel only.

8.7. Compliance Risk Assessment

Compliance risks must be assessed regularly to identify potential vulnerabilities in the system and to ensure adherence to regulations. This includes evaluating the effectiveness of implemented controls and making necessary adjustments.

Key Compliance Risks:

• Risk of non-compliance with GDPR and potential fines due to inadequate data protection measures.

• Risk of unauthorized access to sensitive health information leading to HIPAA violations.

• Risk of data breaches involving payment information resulting in PCI-DSS non-compliance.

---

9. Security Architecture Recommendations

This section provides comprehensive security architecture guidance that integrates security controls into the system’s technical design. Security architecture defines how security principles, controls, and patterns are applied across system components to create a cohesive, defense-in-depth security posture. The recommendations address architectural principles, component-level controls, data protection strategies, and third-party integration security to ensure security is built into the system design.

9.1. Architectural Security Principles

Architectural security principles provide the foundational philosophy guiding all security design decisions. These principles ensure consistent security posture across all system components and guide the selection and implementation of security controls. They shape trade-offs between usability, performance and protection, and inform how each subsystem must behave under normal and adverse conditions.

• Zero Trust Architecture principles: Never trust, always verify — every request (user, process, service) must be authenticated and authorized regardless of network location. This prevents implicit trust of internal networks and limits lateral movement.
• Defense in Depth: Apply multiple independent layers of controls (network, host, application, data, identity) so that if one control fails, additional controls mitigate risk and provide time for detection and response.
• Principle of Least Privilege: Grant users, services and processes only the minimal privileges required to perform their jobs, and enforce tight scoping of credentials and capabilities.
• Secure by Default/Design: Defaults should be secure (secure configuration, services disabled unless required) and security should be integrated early in the design and lifecycle, not bolted on afterwards.
• Separation of Duties: Partition responsibilities (e.g., build submission, FPGA programming, admin operations) so that no single actor or account can perform high-risk end-to-end operations without multi-party controls.
• Fail Secure: On failure, systems should default to the most restrictive safe state (e.g., deny privileged operations, preserve audit trails) rather than remaining permissive.
• Complete Mediation: Every access request must be checked against current policy (no caching of authorization decisions that bypass subsequent checks); authorization must be enforced server-side.
• Defense in Depth for Data (Data-Centric Security): Protect data at rest, in transit and in use through classification, encryption, access controls and logging; minimize data exposure to UI/preview subsystems.
• Immutable and Auditable State: Maintain tamper-evident audit trails and immutable references (checksums/signed metadata) for provenance of builds, artifacts and firmware.
• Secure Automation & Least Automation Privilege: Automation (CI triggers, Ansible) runs under constrained service accounts with approvals for escalations and auditable playbooks.
• Resilient and Observable: Build observability (metrics, tracing, logs) into each layer; design for graceful degradation while preserving security controls (e.g., lockdown on degraded auth backend).
• Privacy by Design: Limit PII in notifications and logs, provide user controls for notification preferences, and enforce retention/disposal rules.

---

9.2. Component-Level Security Controls

Frontend User Interface

Required Controls:

• Enforce TLS (HTTPS) with HSTS for all frontend traffic.
• Implement CSP, Subresource Integrity (SRI), and strict X-Frame-Options to mitigate XSS/Clickjacking.
• Output encoding and context-aware escaping on all dynamic UI content.
• Protect session tokens with Secure, HttpOnly, SameSite cookie attributes and session rotation on privilege changes.
• Client-side input validation as UX + server-side validation on every request.
• Minimal client-side caching of sensitive content; use short-lived tokens for real-time channels.
• Rate limit UI actions that can trigger backend operations (e.g., bulk tasks).
• Mobile-responsive secure patterns (no debug endpoints, sanitized previews).

Recommended Patterns:

• Serve SPA through an authenticated API gateway or CDN with WAF.
• Use modern frontend frameworks that enforce safe template rendering and avoid direct innerHTML patterns.
• Token-based auth (short-lived JWT access + rotating refresh token) with cookie-based storage for web.
• Use WebSockets over TLS (wss://) with Origin validation for real-time features.

Edge & Auth

Required Controls:

• Centralized authentication using AD SSO (SAML/OIDC) with MFA enforced for privileged roles.
• OAuth2 flows for GitHub integration with secure storage of tokens in Vault.
• API Gateway to enforce authentication, authorization and rate-limits.
• Validate and verify inbound webhook signatures for GitHub and other external webhooks.
• Terminate TLS at edge with strong cipher suites and certificate management.
• Session management, token revocation, IP and device risk evaluation.
• Protect identity assertions (no sensitive claims in client storage).

Recommended Patterns:

• API Gateway (OAuth2/OpenID Connect aware) with RBAC enforcement and centralized policy engine (e.g., OPA).
• Reverse proxy with WAF in front of application services.
• Identity federation: AD FS / Azure AD SAML/OIDC integration using enterprise IdP.
• Use a centralized session store (Redis encrypted in transit) for revocation and server-side session controls.

Application Services

Required Controls:

• Enforce server-side RBAC and authorization checks for every REST endpoint (default deny).
• Input validation and schema enforcement for all APIs (use OpenAPI schemas).
• Sanitize and validate parameters used to build SLURM jobs or execute commands.
• Centralized audit logging for user actions and system events with correlation IDs.
• Secrets access only via Vault; no secrets in environment variables or source code.
• Strong authentication for admin endpoints with MFA and elevated approval flows.

Recommended Patterns:

• Microservices behind API Gateway with fine-grained service-to-service auth (mTLS or mTLS+JWT).
• Use of policy-as-code (OPA/Rego) for authorization logic.
• Application-level rate-limiting and bulk-operation safeguards.
• Circuit breakers and retry/backoff strategies for downstream calls.

Background Workers & Orchestrator

Required Controls:

• Use managed service identities and Vault-managed credentials for HPC/SLURM and device interactions.
• Mutual TLS for worker-to-HPC/FPGA communication with host allow-listing.
• Job parameter validation and enforcement of quotas/priority rules.
• Robust logging of job lifecycle events to SIEM and tamper-evident storage.
• Retry, backoff and circuit-breaker logic with alerting on abnormal failure patterns.

Recommended Patterns:

• Worker queue (e.g., Redis Queue, RabbitMQ, Kubernetes Jobs) with RBAC-based access to enqueue/dequeue operations.
• Use signed job manifests (build definitions) and verify before submission.
• Isolated worker pools by trust-level (e.g., normal builds vs hardware programming) with separate credentials and network segments.

HPC & FPGA Hardware Zone

Required Controls:

• Network segmentation and ACLs: access only from authorized backend subnets/jump hosts.
• Device-level authentication and authorization for programming operations; require dual-approval for production hardware changes.
• Signed bitfile verification before programming; store artifact checksums with build records.
• UART/console access proxied through authenticated, audited backend services; sensitive console data redaction where required.
• Physical security controls for FPGA/HPC hosting environment.

Recommended Patterns:

• Use dedicated management VLANs and jump hosts/bastion with MFA for administrative device access.
• Apply micro-segmentation on compute nodes hosting sensitive FPGA cards.
• Use mTLS or SSH with certificate-based auth for programming endpoints.

Data Storage & Analytics

Required Controls:

• Encrypt data at rest (DB, object store) and use per-purpose keys managed by a KMS/HSM.
• Field-level encryption for highly sensitive fields (secrets, PII).
• Immutable audit log storage option (WORM or signed archives).
• RBAC for data access with fine-grained DB row/column controls where needed.
• Data retention and secure deletion workflows.

Recommended Patterns:

• Encrypted RDBMS with TDE (e.g., PostgreSQL with pgcrypto/managed KMS integration).
• S3-compatible object store with server-side encryption (SSE-KMS) and bucket policies.
• Time-series metrics in separate storage with access controls (Prometheus + long-term storage with RBAC).
• Use of data pipeline that strips/redacts PII for analytics and report generation.

External Integrations

Required Controls:

• All external integrations (AD, GitHub, SMTP, Vault, licensing servers) must use encrypted channels and appropriate auth (OAuth2, SAML, API keys in Vault, mTLS).
• Validate inbound webhook signatures and throttle external event sources.
• Enforce least-privilege scopes for third-party tokens.

Recommended Patterns:

• Put third-party integration connectors into isolated integration subnets or services with limited privileges and dedicated service accounts.
• Record integration metadata and audit every external-initiated event.

Deployment & Ops

Required Controls:

• Hardened container images, image signing and a registry with vulnerability scanning.
• Secure Ansible control plane with encrypted variable management and playbook signing where possible.
• Health-check endpoints require authentication and return minimal information.
• Role-based access to deployment operations and Ansible inventories.
• Automated patching and vulnerability scanning with documented SLAs.

Recommended Patterns:

• CI/CD pipeline that enforces SAST/SCA/SBOM checks and only promotes signed images to production.
• Immutable infrastructure patterns (ephemeral containers, rebuild rather than patch) combined with infrastructure-as-code reviews.
• Use bastion/jump hosts for admin ops and limit direct host access.

---

9.3. Data Protection Strategy

Data Classification: Public, Internal, Confidential, Restricted

• Public — Non-sensitive information intended for broad public distribution (e.g., generic product documentation).
• Internal — Operational data not for public disclosure (e.g., non-sensitive dashboards, usage metrics).
• Confidential — Business-sensitive information (e.g., build artifacts not shipped externally, user profiles).
• Restricted — Highest sensitivity: secrets, credentials, private key material, signed bitfiles for production, PII regulated by law.

Encryption Requirements:

• Data in Transit:
  • Enforce TLS 1.2 (min) and prefer TLS 1.3 for all external and internal communications.
  • Use strong cipher suites (AEAD: AES-GCM, ChaCha20-Poly1305). Disable weak ciphers and older protocol versions.
  • Use mTLS for service-to-service authentication where mutual identity is required (workers to HPC/FPGA endpoints, internal API calls requiring high trust).
• Data at Rest:
  • Use AES-256-GCM for disk/volume encryption and object storage server-side encryption.
  • Database field-level encryption using AES-256 with envelope encryption keys stored in KMS/HSM.
  • Use RSA-3072 or ECDSA (P-384) for signing artifacts and integrity assertions; prefer ECC for performance when compatible.
• Key Management:
  • Use a centralized KMS/HSM or HashiCorp Vault for key storage, rotation and access control.
  • Keys used for data-at-rest encryption and signing must be rotated periodically and after any suspected compromise.
  • Implement split knowledge for critical key operations and restrict key export.
• Hashing & Integrity:
  • Use SHA-256 or SHA-2 family for checksums; store checksums and signatures with artifacts/metadata for provenance verification.
• Credentials and Passwords:
  • Use strong password hashing algorithms for any stored authenticators: Argon2id (preferred) or bcrypt/PBKDF2 with configurable cost.

Retention Policies:

• Audit Logs:
  • Retain high-fidelity audit logs for a minimum of 1 year online and 7 years archived (configurable per regulatory need).
• Build Artifacts:
  • Default retention for ephemeral/feature builds: 30 days.
  • Retention for release/production artifacts: 1–7 years per organizational policy (must be configurable).
  • Signed/production bitfiles: retained per CM/Compliance policy with versioning and immutable storage options.
• Backups:
  • Backups stored encrypted, retained per business continuity plan (e.g., 90 days on hot storage, 7 years archive for compliance-sensitive environments).
• Personal Data:
  • Retain only as long as required by business and legal obligations; enforce erasure/retention in line with GDPR/CCPA where applicable.

Handling Procedures:

• Access:
  • Enforce RBAC and least privilege. User and service access to sensitive datasets must be explicitly provisioned and logged.
  • Use ephemeral credentials and time-limited tokens for automation tasks.
• Transmission:
  • All transmissions of Confidential/Restricted data must use TLS; prefer mTLS between services carrying Restricted data.
  • Do not expose secrets or PII in webhook payloads, notifications, or browser push messages.
• Storage:
  • Store artifacts and bitfiles in encrypted object store with per-bucket policies and versioning enabled. Maintain checksums and signatures per artifact version.
  • Maintain immutable logs/audit archives (WORM or signed archives) for forensic and compliance uses.
• Deletion:
  • Implement secure deletion workflows for restricted data: logical deletion triggers secure purge of object storage versions and associated backups; confirm deletion in logs.
  • Soft-delete plus retention hold for regulated artifacts (flagged for compliance) with explicit authorized restore procedures.
• Preview & Rendering:
  • Render file previews in sandboxed environments with AV scanning and content sanitization. Strip metadata from previews where PII could be present.
• Backups & Restores:
  • Backups encrypted and access-limited; restores require RBAC + MFA authorization with restore logs written to immutable audit store.
• Incident Response:
  • Predefined playbooks for data exposure incidents including scope determination, key rotation, customer notification and legal escalation.

---

9.4. Third-Party Integration Security

Active Directory / Enterprise IdP (AD FS / Azure AD)

Security Requirements:

• Use SAML2.0 or OpenID Connect (OIDC) for federated SSO integration.
• Enforce MFA for privileged and administrative roles.
• Map AD groups to application RBAC and maintain automatic provisioning/deprovisioning ties.
• Secure IdP endpoints with TLS and signed tokens/assertions.

Risk Assessment: High — Identity provider compromise or misconfiguration can allow unauthorized access across the system; deprovisioning delays create orphaned accounts.

Recommended Controls:

• Validate SAML assertions/OIDC ID tokens (signature, issuer, audience, expiration).
• Periodic entitlement review and automated deprovisioning via SCIM where possible.
• Monitor IdP logs and integrate alerts for suspicious login patterns.
• Configure short token lifetimes and require re-authentication for sensitive operations.

GitHub (OAuth + Webhooks + Repo Access)

Security Requirements:

• Use OAuth2 authorization code flow for repo access with least privilege scopes.
• Validate webhook payloads using X-Hub-Signature/X-Hub-Signature-256 secrets.
• Store GitHub tokens securely in Vault and rotate regularly.

Risk Assessment: High — Compromised repos or forged webhooks can trigger malicious builds or inject malicious code into artifacts.

Recommended Controls:

• Register webhook secrets and verify signatures on every webhook.
• Map allowed repositories and branches explicitly; require admin approval for connecting new repos.
• Limit token scopes and use short-lived tokens / GitHub Apps with fine-grained permissions.
• Scan repository code for secrets and malware; trigger builds only after automated checks pass.

Corporate SMTP (Email notifications)

Security Requirements:

• Use TLS (STARTTLS or SMTPS) for SMTP connections.
• Require authenticated connections using service accounts; do not embed credentials in source.
• Respect user notification preferences and PII redaction.

Risk Assessment: Medium — Improper handling can leak sensitive build info or PII via email or be used for phishing if abused.

Recommended Controls:

• Use dedicated service accounts with limited scope and store credentials in Vault.
• Rate limit outgoing emails and monitor sending patterns.
• Template-based emails with no sensitive attachments; link to authenticated UI for artifact downloads.

Secrets Manager (HashiCorp Vault / KMS)

Security Requirements:

• All secrets (API keys, device creds, DB passwords) must be stored in Vault/KMS and accessed via authenticated, audited API.
• Enforce access control and key rotation policies.

Risk Assessment: Critical — Secrets compromise leads to privilege escalation and lateral movement.

Recommended Controls:

• Enforce ACLs, lease-based secrets, dynamic credentials where possible (short-lived DB credentials).
• Audit access and alert on unusual secret retrievals.
• Use HSM-backed key protection for root keys and signing keys.

HPC / SLURM Cluster

Security Requirements:

• Worker-to-SLURM communication over mutually authenticated, encrypted channels.
• Validate and sanitize SLURM job parameters before submission.
• Per-user and per-group quotas with rate-limits on job submissions.

Risk Assessment: High — Abuse can result in resource exhaustion, unauthorized code execution or cross-tenant data leakage on shared nodes.

Recommended Controls:

• Enforce namespaces/partitions and scheduling isolation for different trust levels.
• Limit job resource requests, validate resource parameters and require approval for high-priority/large jobs.
• Monitor job submission patterns and integrate SLURM logs to SIEM.

EDA Licensing Servers

Security Requirements:

• Communications between EDA tools and license servers must be encrypted and authenticated.
• Only authorized build pools can request licenses.

Risk Assessment: Medium — License server compromise can affect availability of EDA tools or permit unauthorized tool use.

Recommended Controls:

• Restrict license requests to known hosts/IPs and use VPN/secure network segments.
• Monitor license usage and anomalies; alert on unexpected spikes.

Object Storage (S3-compatible)

Security Requirements:

• Use HTTPS for all object store access and server-side encryption (SSE-KMS).
• Implement bucket/object ACLs and signed URLs for temporary downloads.

Risk Assessment: High — Artifacts or bitfiles leakage can expose IP or enable tampering.

Recommended Controls:

• Enforce signed, time-limited pre-signed URLs for downloads and uploads.
• Enable versioning and lifecycle policies for retention/purge.
• Apply bucket policies to deny public access and restrict access to backend subnets/service principals.

PostgreSQL RDBMS

Security Requirements:

• Enforce TLS for DB connections.
• Use DB-level roles and least privilege, with no direct DB credentials stored in application images.
• Backups encrypted and access-controlled.

Risk Assessment: High — DB compromise exposes user accounts, RBAC policies, audit logs and build metadata.

Recommended Controls:

• Use managed DB with TDE or disk encryption and integration with Vault/KMS.
• Enforce parameterized queries and ORM usage; restrict superuser access.
• Monitor and alert on anomalous DB queries and privilege escalations.

Container Registry / Docker Hub (Image Supply Chain)

Security Requirements:

• Only signed, scanned images promoted to production registry.
• Registry access requires service tokens with least privilege.

Risk Assessment: High — Malicious or vulnerable images compromise the entire runtime.

Recommended Controls:

• Image signing (Cosign) and SBOM generation.
• Automated image scanning and promotion gates in CI.
• Immutable tags for production images and restricted registry ACLs.

Ansible Control Plane / Provisioning

Security Requirements:

• Protect inventories, vault files, and playbooks with restricted access.
• Use signed playbooks and protect secrets referenced in playbooks via Vault.

Risk Assessment: Medium — Compromise can lead to misconfiguration or unauthorized changes.

Recommended Controls:

• Run Ansible from bastion or CI runner with least privilege.
• Use playbook linting, code reviews and automated tests prior to execution.
• Audit and record provisioning runs to central logging.

Monitoring Stack (Prometheus / ELK / SIEM)

Security Requirements:

• TLS for ingestion endpoints, RBAC for dashboards and limited data retention on raw logs containing PII.
• Alerting channels must be authenticated.

Risk Assessment: Medium — Exposure of monitoring data may reveal system internals and sensitive metadata.

Recommended Controls:

• Restrict access to monitoring dashboards via MFA and RBAC.
• Mask/redact PII in telemetry; secure forwarding to central SIEM.
• Protect retention of high-fidelity logs and use WORM for critical audit log storage.

---

(End of third-party integrations list)

---

Holistic Integration Notes - Enforce the cross-functional controls (centralized SIEM, encryption at rest/in-transit, least privilege, secure development, and rate-limiting) across all components to create a cohesive security posture. - Use an organization-wide policy and configuration baseline for TLS parameters, key rotation, logging formats and retention to ensure consistency. - Test the entire flow regularly: SSO flows, webhook validation, artifact signing/verification, job submission/authorization, FPGA programming approval, and restore exercises. - Maintain runbooks for high-risk operations (FPGA programming, DB restore) that require multi-person authorization and produce signed audit records.

---

Observability, Testing & Governance - Implement continuous vulnerability scanning (SCA for code & SBOM), SAST/DAST in CI and runtime image scanning. - Regularly conduct threat modeling focused on SLURM/HPC and hardware control flows, and penetration tests for the web UI, APIs, and real-time channels. - Maintain an access review cadence and periodic compliance audits for retention and data handling policies. - Run incident response exercises with scenarios including leaked GitHub webhook secrets, stolen build artifacts, and unauthorized FPGA programming.

This document defines the principles, component controls, data protection and third-party integration controls required to build a secure, resilient FPGA build automation web application aligned with the OWASP/NIST/ISO controls summarized in your requirements.

---

10. Implementation Roadmap

This section provides a prioritized, phased approach for implementing the security controls identified throughout this analysis. The roadmap organizes security measures into logical phases based on risk, dependencies, and resource availability, ensuring critical security gaps are addressed first while building a foundation for comprehensive security coverage.

10.1. Prioritization Framework

Prioritization is essential for effective security implementation as it helps in systematically addressing the most critical vulnerabilities and compliance requirements first, ensuring that limited resources are utilized efficiently to protect the organization’s core assets. The criteria used to prioritize security control implementation ensure that security investments are aligned with risk levels, compliance requirements, technical feasibility, resource availability, and business needs.

Prioritization Criteria:

• Risk Level: Controls addressing critical and high-risk threats (identified through threat modeling) are prioritized first

• Compliance Deadlines: Regulatory requirements and compliance deadlines influence immediate priority

• Technical Complexity: Controls requiring foundational infrastructure are implemented early to enable subsequent controls

• Dependencies: Controls that other security measures depend upon are prioritized accordingly

• Resource Availability: Implementation considers the availability of skilled personnel, tools, and budget

• Business Impact: Controls protecting business-critical functions and data receive higher priority

These criteria work together to create a logical implementation sequence that balances security needs with practical constraints, ensuring that critical risks are mitigated promptly while setting the foundation for long-term security improvements.

10.2. Phased Implementation Plan

Phase: IMMEDIATE

Timeline: 0-1 months

Rationale: This phase focuses on addressing critical vulnerabilities, essential authentication and authorization controls, and compliance blockers to immediately mitigate the most significant risks and achieve baseline security posture.

Controls to Implement:

• Implement Active Directory (AD) SSO with MFA for all users
• Deploy HTTPS/TLS across all web and API endpoints
• Enforce secure session management with token rotation and session timeout
• Encrypt sensitive data at rest and in transit

Dependencies:

• Require deployment of AD infrastructure and SSO configuration
• Completion of TLS certificate procurement and installation

Phase: SHORT-TERM

Timeline: 1-3 months

Rationale: These controls build upon immediate security measures, focusing on improving access control adjustments and ensuring that logging and API security mitigate identified threats effectively.

Controls to Implement:

• Enhance user authentication through comprehensive multi-factor authentication
• Deploy role-based access controls across the admin dashboard
• Implement comprehensive logging and monitoring for all administrative actions
• Strengthen API security with input validation and HTTPS protocols
• Begin encryption for all sensitive data at rest

Dependencies:

• Completion of TLS Implementation
• Completion of multi-factor authentication

Phase: MEDIUM-TERM

Timeline: 3-6 months

Rationale: This phase focuses on enhancing threat detection, automating security testing, and performing third-party security audits to identify and mitigate advanced threats.

Controls to Implement:

• Deploy advanced threat detection and response tools
• Implement automated security testing in CI/CD pipelines
• Conduct third-party security audits and penetration testing
• Enhance data protection with advanced encryption techniques

Dependencies:

• Completion of role-based access control deployment
• Availability of third-party security auditing firms

Phase: LONG-TERM

Timeline: 6-12 months

Rationale: Strategic initiatives and continuous improvements are targeted to mature the security posture, such as advanced AI/ML security controls and comprehensive penetration testing.

Controls to Implement:

• Develop and implement AI/ML-based security analytics
• Conduct comprehensive penetration testing for all systems
• Launch security awareness and training programs for staff
• Expand security maturity assessments and remediation plans

Dependencies:

• Establishment of a security analytics team
• Completion of initial security maturity assessment

Phase: ONGOING

Timeline: Continuous

Rationale: Ongoing activities ensure the continuous monitoring, patch management, compliance audits, and incident response readiness to maintain and enhance the security posture over time.

Controls to Implement:

• Maintain continuous security monitoring and alerting
• Implement regular patch management cycles for all systems
• Conduct periodic compliance audits and reviews
• Enhance incident response readiness with drills and updates

Dependencies:

• Establishment of a dedicated security operations center (SOC)
• Ongoing collaboration with compliance and audit teams

10.3. Resource Requirements

Skills: Security engineers, Security architects, Web developers, Compliance specialists, Threat intelligence analysts

Recommended tools: SIEM solutions for logging and monitoring, Vulnerability scanners for testing, Encryption libraries for data protection, API management tools for secure interfaces, Automation tools for CI/CD security integration

Estimated time effort: Approximately 3-6 months for initial phases, with ongoing efforts extending resources as per system complexity and requirements.

---

11. Verification and Testing Strategy

11.1. Testing Approach

Integrate security testing throughout the software development lifecycle (SDLC) with an emphasis on continuous security practices. Balance automated scanning with manual evaluations to prioritize high-risk areas based on business impact, adhering to shift-left security principles by incorporating security testing earlier and continuously. This approach ensures that vulnerabilities are identified and remediated in a timely manner, aligning with compliance requirements and organizational security policies.

11.2. Testing Methods

Method	Frequency	Tools
STATIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (SAST)	Every commit/build	SonarQube, Semgrep, Checkmarx, CodeQL
DYNAMIC APPLICATION SECURITY TESTING (DAST)	Nightly/weekly	OWASP ZAP, Burp Suite, Acunetix
DEPENDENCY SCANNING	Every build	Snyk, Dependabot, OWASP Dependency-Check
SECRETS SCANNING	Every commit	TruffleHog, GitLeaks, GitHub Secret Scanning
CONTAINER/INFRASTRUCTURE SCANNING	Every deployment	Trivy, Clair, Prowler, ScoutSuite
PENETRATION TESTING	Quarterly or before major releases	Custom scripts, Metasploit, Burp Suite Pro
SECURITY CODE REVIEW	For critical features	GitHub/GitLab code review, security checklists
COMPLIANCE SCANNING	Continuous	AWS Config, Azure Policy, Cloud Custodian

11.3. Compliance Verification

Multi-standard compliance (OWASP ASVS, NIST SP 800-53, ISO 27001) will be verified through automated tools and manual checks against regulatory requirements such as GDPR, CCPA, and PCI-DSS. Audit preparation will involve ensuring documentation and evidence collection for external audits, including user consent records and data handling policies. Recommendations will include engaging third-party auditors for comprehensive evaluations to validate compliance with industry standards and legal obligations.

11.4. Continuous Monitoring

Implement Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) for real-time monitoring, supported by Intrusion Detection/Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS) to identify and mitigate threats. All logs will be aggregated and analyzed for anomalies, with integration into incident response processes to ensure prompt action against security events. Continuous monitoring will also include regular assessments of security controls and compliance adherence, ensuring that the security posture remains robust and effective.

11.5. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

• Mean time to detect (MTTD) security issues
  
• Mean time to remediate (MTTR) vulnerabilities
  
• Percentage of critical vulnerabilities patched within SLA
  
• Security test coverage percentage
  
• False positive rate in automated scanning
  
• Compliance audit pass rate

11.6. Mapping Testing Methods to Security Controls

• SAST: Verifies input validation, injection flaws, and hardcoded secrets.
• DAST: Validates authentication, authorization, XSS, CSRF, and SQL injection controls.
• Dependency Scanning: Ensures supply chain security via identification of vulnerabilities in third-party libraries.
• Secrets Scanning: Protects against exposure of credentials and API keys.
• Container/Infrastructure Scanning: Enforces configuration management for container security.
• Penetration Testing: Assesses all high-risk controls and provides a holistic view of the application’s security.
• Security Code Review: Ensures the integrity of authentication, authorization, and cryptographic implementations.
• Compliance Scanning: Validates adherence to regulatory compliance controls across the application.

This comprehensive security verification and testing strategy ensures a proactive and thorough approach to maintaining security and compliance within the CI Build Automation Tool environment.

---

12. Validation Report

This section presents a comprehensive validation of the security requirements generated throughout this analysis. The validation evaluates the requirements against five key dimensions: completeness, consistency, correctness, implementability, and alignment with business objectives. This assessment ensures that the security requirements are comprehensive, technically sound, and actionable for implementation teams.

12.1. Overall Assessment

The overall validation score reflects the quality and completeness of the security requirements across five critical dimensions. Each dimension is scored from 0.0 to 1.0, with 1.0 representing excellent coverage and 0.0 indicating significant gaps.

Overall Score: 0.80/1.0

Validation Status: ❌ NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

The security requirements fall below the quality threshold and require improvement before implementation. Specific areas for enhancement are detailed in the sections below.

The validation assesses:

• Completeness: Are all identified security concerns adequately addressed?
• Consistency: Do requirements align with each other without contradictions?
• Correctness: Are controls appropriate for the identified risks and correctly applied?
• Implementability: Are requirements specific, actionable, and feasible to implement?
• Alignment: Do security requirements align with business requirements and objectives?

12.2. Dimension Scores

Dimension	Score	Status
Completeness	0.75	⚠️
Consistency	0.90	✅
Correctness	0.85	✅
Implementability	0.70	⚠️
Alignment	0.78	⚠️

Score Interpretation: - ✅ 0.8-1.0: Excellent - ⚠️ 0.7-0.79: Acceptable (minor improvements needed) - ❌ <0.7: Needs significant improvement

12.3. Detailed Feedback

Summary: The provided security controls mapping is comprehensive and well-aligned with most of the business requirements (authentication, RBAC, real-time channels, file handling, SLURM/HPC integration, FPGA programming, logging, secrets, containerization, monitoring). However there are several important coverage gaps, some vagueness in implementability, and a few areas where controls should be made more specific and tightly bound to the build-execution risk model. Because the overall average score is below the 0.8 threshold, I recommend prioritized remediation. Concrete, actionable improvements (ordered by priority):

Critical / High priority fixes (must be addressed before production): 1) Build execution sandboxing and runtime isolation: define and require ephemeral, sandboxed execution environments for every build (e.g., ephemeral containers or VMs per job, with OS-level sandboxing, seccomp/AppArmor, no persistent host mounts). Document allowed network egress and default-deny policies. Implement egress filtering and block outbound network unless explicitly required for a build and authorized. - Verification: run malicious build payloads in staging to ensure network/host isolation, perform escape attempts and ensure containment.

2. Secrets exposure in build environments: add explicit controls to prevent long-lived credentials leaking into build artifacts. Use ephemeral credentials injected at runtime via a secrets broker (Vault, KMS) with short TTLs and fine-grained policies. Never bake secrets into container images or store them in repo/artifact metadata.
   • Implementation: mount secrets as in-memory only, ephemeral tokens per job, automatic rotation and automatic revocation at job end.
   • Verification: attempt to detect secrets in build artifacts and logs via automated scanning; confirm secrets are revoked after job completion.
3. SLURM/HPC integration least-privilege and account mapping: define mapping between app users/roles and HPC accounts/quotas. Job submission API must translate application-level authorization to appropriate HPC credentials, using scoped service accounts or ephemeral HPC credentials. Enforce per-user/group quotas and priority escalation approvals.
   • Verification: attempt to submit jobs with elevated resources without approval; ensure quota enforcement and that job ownership maps correctly.
4. Hardware programming (FPGA bitfile) hardening: expand on bitfile signing, approval workflows and non-repudiation. Require cryptographic signing of bitfiles, verification on device side prior to programming, multi-actor approval for production programming, and time-limited authorization tokens for programming operations.
   • Verification: attempt an unsigned or tampered bitfile deployment; ensure it is rejected and logged.
5. GitHub/webhook security and supply-chain protections: extend to include dependency / third-party code scanning and secure CI runner isolation. Validate webhooks (signature verification) but also ensure the build process treats incoming source as untrusted: run builds on isolated runners, apply SCA (software composition analysis) on dependencies before build, and require policy checks (e.g., deny builds from unknown repos or from untrusted forks).
   • Verification: send forged webhook payloads (signature mismatch) and confirm rejection; test PRs containing malicious dependency references to ensure detection/blocking.
6. Logging, WORM/tamper-evidence and retention specifics: mandate append-only storage for critical audit logs (SIEM/WORM), integrity protections (signatures or checksums), retention durations mapped to compliance requirements, and protected access controls. Ensure log content policy to avoid PII leakage.
   • Verification: attempt controlled log modification; verify tamper-evidence and access controls.

Medium priority fixes (must be specified and made testable): 7) CI/CD image provenance and runtime hardening: require signed container images, SBOMs, image vulnerability scanning in pipeline, image promotion gates, and runtime enforcement of non-root and minimal capabilities. Document image patching frequency and enforcement steps. - Verification: test unsigned image rejection, SCA report gating within CI.

8. Secrets management policy details: define KMS/vault architecture, key rotation cadence, access control policies for secrets, and secrets access audit trails. Specify secret scopes (service vs user) and secret injection patterns for workers.
   • Verification: audit secret access logs and test rotation workflows.
9. Build artifact scanning: scan produced artifacts for credentials, malware and IP leakage prior to storage and release. Quarantine suspicious artifacts and notify owners.
   • Verification: drop test credentials in a build and ensure scanning detects and quarantines the artifact.
10. Incident response and playbooks tied to build/HPC/FPGA events: add concrete IR steps for build-system compromise, rogue job execution, bitfile tampering, and leaked secrets. Include escalation paths, forensic data collection requirements and SLA targets.

• Verification: run tabletop exercises and full incident drills on key scenarios.

Lower priority / governance and clarity improvements: 11) Narrow and document applicable compliance scope: the control list enumerates many regulations (GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, PCI, SOX, GLBA, COPPA). Determine which apply to your deployment and explicitly map controls and retention/pseudonymization rules to each applicable regulation. Avoid generic “cover all” controls — capture precise obligations.

12. Data classification and PII handling: define data classification scheme and apply field-level encryption/redaction for analytics, logs, and notifications. Specify retention periods and automated deletion workflows for personal data.

13. AI/ML controls: refine AI/ML risk claims and controls. The current AI/ML section seems generic (e.g., prompt injection applied to build triggers). If you have ML models for analytics or notification scoring, specify model hosting, training data controls, access restrictions, model monitoring, drift detection, and provenance. If no ML models are actually used, remove or reduce this section.

14. Testable metrics and SLAs: specify measurable verification methods (scan cadence, patch windows, RTO/RPO for critical services, log retention days) and incorporate them into acceptance criteria for developers and operators.

15. Recovery/contingency details for scheduler outage: add explicit fallback behavior (local queueing, retry policy, degraded UI behavior) and test-run scenarios.

Why these changes matter: The system runs arbitrary user-supplied code (build flows) and programs hardware (FPGA). Those two aspects create high-impact attack paths (host escape, secret exfiltration, firmware compromise). While many controls exist in the mapping, a production-ready security specification must explicitly and testably address runtime isolation, secrets handling, job-to-HPC credential translation, artifact integrity and hardware programming safeguards.

Suggested next steps for the security/product teams: - Add a short prioritized roadmap (implement sandboxing + secrets + FPGA signing + SLURM RBAC first). - Update the security controls matrix to include concrete implementation choices (e.g., Vault + short-lived tokens, use of ephemeral containers with kata-containers/Firecracker if stronger isolation required). Include example policies and CI gates. - Produce test cases for each critical control and include them in acceptance criteria for feature delivery (e.g., webhook signature tests, artifact scanning tests, build runner isolation tests). - Re-evaluate AI/ML controls against actual ML components to avoid over/under-protection.

If you’d like, I can: 1) produce a prioritized remediation plan with acceptance criteria and tests, 2) produce example architecture sketches showing secrets flow and build isolation, or 3) produce a compliance-mapping document that ties each applicable regulation to the specific controls and retention windows.

12.4. Recommendations for Improvement

Based on the validation results, consider the following actions:

Priority Areas:

• Implementability (Score: 0.70): Provide more specific, actionable implementation guidance
• Completeness (Score: 0.75): Add missing security controls and expand coverage for all requirements
• Alignment (Score: 0.78): Better align security controls with business objectives and risk profile

---

Appendix A: Original Requirements Document

CI Build Automation Tool - Web Application Requirements

We need to build a web application to automate FPGA build flows (from web browser to HPC servers), which includes selecting the file set, giving it to EDA tools for linting, synthesis, place & route, and timing analysis, and submitting jobs to a cluster.

The application should be a modern web application accessible through a browser, with a responsive web interface for users to manage builds, monitor progress, and access results. The web application communicates with backend services that handle FPGA card interactions and HPC server job submissions. A database is maintained for cataloging and inventory.

The application should be integrated with GitHub for automated builds from branches.

Key features:

1. User Management & Authentication
    1. Users should authenticate via Active Directory (AD) integration (SSO)
    2. Users should access the application through a web browser
    3. Role-based access control (RBAC) for different user permissions
    4. User profile management and preferences
    5. Session management and secure logout

2. Web Interface & User Experience
    1. Responsive web dashboard for monitoring builds and tasks
    2. Real-time status updates using WebSockets or Server-Sent Events
    3. Interactive file browser and upload interface
    4. Drag-and-drop file upload functionality
    5. Web-based task creation and management forms
    6. Live log viewer with auto-refresh for EDA tool outputs
    7. Interactive charts and visualizations for build statistics
    8. Mobile-responsive design for access on tablets and phones

3. Task Management
    1. Create, edit, and delete build tasks through web interface
    2. Submit tasks to HPC servers via web API
    3. Track task status (To Do, In Progress, Done, Failed) with visual indicators
    4. Task queue management and prioritization
    5. Task history and audit trail
    6. Bulk task operations (create multiple tasks, cancel multiple tasks)

4. File Management
    1. Web-based file upload interface for attaching files to HPC infrastructure
    2. File browser to view and manage uploaded files
    3. Download build artifacts and results through web interface
    4. File versioning and history
    5. Support for large file uploads with progress indicators
    6. File preview capabilities for common file types

5. HPC & FPGA Integration (Backend Services)
    1. REST API endpoints for submitting jobs to HPC infrastructure via SLURM
    2. Web API for programming FPGAs with bitfiles
    3. Background job processing service for HPC communication
    4. Integration with UART ports for FPGA communication (handled by backend)
    5. Real-time status updates pushed to web clients

6. GitHub Integration
    1. OAuth-based GitHub authentication
    2. Web interface for selecting GitHub repositories and branches
    3. Automated build triggers from GitHub webhooks
    4. Display GitHub commit information and branch details in web UI
    5. Link builds to specific commits and pull requests

7. Notifications
    1. In-app notifications displayed in web interface
    2. Email notifications when builds are completed
    3. Browser push notifications (optional)
    4. Notification preferences and settings in user profile
    5. Notification history and read/unread status

8. Reporting & Analytics
    1. Web-based dashboard with build statistics and metrics
    2. Live log streaming from EDA tools in web interface
    3. Export build logs as downloadable files (PDF, CSV, TXT)
    4. Generate and export reports for builds per user per time period
    5. Interactive charts and graphs for build trends
    6. Build success/failure rate visualizations
    7. Performance metrics and timing analysis reports

9.  Deployment & Maintenance
    1. Web application deployment via containerization (Docker)
    2. Automated deployment and updates with Ansible
    3. Health check endpoints for monitoring
    4. Web-based admin panel for system configuration
    5. Database backup and restore through web interface

---

Appendix B: Glossary

Term	Definition
ASVS	Application Security Verification Standard (OWASP)
STRIDE	Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege
SAST	Static Application Security Testing
DAST	Dynamic Application Security Testing
MFA	Multi-Factor Authentication
RBAC	Role-Based Access Control
PII	Personally Identifiable Information
PHI	Protected Health Information
GDPR	General Data Protection Regulation
HIPAA	Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
PCI-DSS	Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard

---

Appendix C: Complete Threat List

This appendix contains the complete list of all identified threats with full descriptions and mitigation strategies. Threats are organized by risk level for easy reference.

Critical Risk Threats

THR-001 - Edge & Auth (AD SSO, session management)

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: High | Impact: High
• Risk Level: Critical
• Description: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, replay) allowing an attacker to impersonate a legitimate user and access the web application and APIs.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce MFA for AD, use conditional access policies, short-lived SSO tokens, certificate-based authentication where possible, monitor anomalous sign-ins, implement session revocation and token revocation workflows, restrict admin logins via bastions and IP whitelisting.

High Risk Threats

THR-002 - Edge & Auth (GitHub OAuth & Webhooks)

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger unauthorized builds or access repository metadata.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use minimal OAuth scopes, implement webhook signature verification (HMAC), rotate and store OAuth tokens in Vault, restrict webhook sources by IP where possible, log and alert on unusual webhook activity.

THR-003 - Frontend Layer (session & cookies)

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Session hijacking via stolen session cookies (e.g., through XSS or network interception) allowing impersonation of authenticated users.
• Mitigation Strategy: Set cookies as HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite=strict where applicable; use TLS everywhere; avoid storing tokens in localStorage; implement token binding, rotate session tokens, reduce session lifetime, detect concurrent sessions and anomalous usage.

THR-004 - Frontend Layer (log viewer and file previews)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session tokens, PII, or internal data, or executes actions on behalf of the user.
• Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize and encode all displayed log and file content, enforce Content Security Policy (CSP), use safe libraries for rendering, restrict HTML rendering, remove sensitive data before view, apply output encoding.

THR-005 - Application Services (DB access)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parameters, file metadata or search queries allowing data modification or disclosure.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use parameterized queries/ORMs, validate and constrain inputs, use least-privilege DB accounts, implement prepared statements and stored procedures, run RAST/DAST, review DB permissions and apply schema-level constraints.

THR-007 - Background Workers & Orchestrator (SLURM jobs)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Attackers manipulate job submission payloads or job scripts (e.g., inject malicious commands or change job resources/priorities) to escalate impact or run unintended workloads on HPC.
• Mitigation Strategy: Validate and sanitize job scripts and parameters, sign or nonce job requests, restrict worker privileges for SLURM submission, run jobs under isolated service accounts, implement job template enforcement and whitelists for allowed commands.

THR-008 - HPC & FPGA Hardware Zone (artifacts, bitfiles)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain proprietary IP, via insufficient access controls on object storage or stale signed URLs.
• Mitigation Strategy: Encrypt artifacts at rest and in transit, enforce strict RBAC on object store, require authenticated access to downloads, use short-lived pre-signed URLs, audit access to artifacts, watermark sensitive outputs where possible.

THR-009 - Data Storage & Analytics (backups)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Exposed or unencrypted DB or artifact backups (e.g., stored on shared file systems or cloud buckets) leading to disclosure of source, IP, or credentials.
• Mitigation Strategy: Encrypt backups with customer-managed keys, restrict access to backup storage, enforce secure transfer, rotate keys, log and monitor backup access, and test restore procedures securely.

THR-011 - Application Services (RBAC/authorization)

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Broken or missing server-side RBAC allows normal users to perform admin actions (e.g., delete artifacts, change RBAC policies, program FPGAs).
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce server-side RBAC checks for all sensitive operations, implement fine-grained roles, perform regular policy audits, apply separation of duties and approval workflows for admin tasks, use automated tests for authorization.

THR-012 - External Integrations (Vault / Secrets Manager)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Compromise or misconfiguration of the secrets manager exposes credentials for HPC, GitHub, EDA licensing, or other systems enabling further compromise.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use Vault with strong ACLs and audit logging, enable dynamic secrets and short leases, require hardware-backed keys (HSM) where possible, rotate and rotate on deployment, restrict access by identity and role, enable MFAs and monitor access.

THR-013 - GitHub Integration (automated builds)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Malicious code in a repository or PR triggers automated builds which execute in the CI environment, potentially exfiltrating data or attacking other systems (supply-chain/code execution).
• Mitigation Strategy: Run builds in isolated ephemeral containers/namespaces, use dedicated read-only runners, enforce signed commits or protected branches, require PR approvals for build triggers, scan code for secrets and malware before build, restrict network egress from build runners.

THR-015 - Deployment & Ops (Docker/containers)

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Misconfigured container runtime (privileged containers, host mounts) or malicious containers cause container escapes or resource exhaustion leading to DoS of control plane or other services.
• Mitigation Strategy: Run containers unprivileged, disable unnecessary capabilities, enforce seccomp/AppArmor profiles, restrict host mounts and Docker socket access, image scanning, use runtime isolation (gVisor, Kata), monitor resource usage and enforce quotas.

THR-017 - Task Management & APIs (bulk operations)

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Intentional or accidental bulk task creation/cancellation (e.g., via API abuse) floods the job queue and exhausts HPC or application resources.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement API rate limiting, per-user and per-team quotas, approval workflow for large/batch operations, queue prioritization and resource reservations, and alerting on abnormal activity.

THR-018 - Data Storage & Analytics (DB integrity)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Unauthorized modification of DB records (task history, audit trails) either via compromised credentials or application bug, undermining forensicability and integrity of results.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use DB-level access controls, immutable audit trails exported to secure storage, cryptographic integrity checks, restrict DB admin operations, use multi-person approval for destructive operations, and monitor for anomalous DB writes.

THR-019 - Frontend Layer (browser storage & caching)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: High | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Sensitive tokens, PII or internal URLs stored in browser localStorage, indexed DB, or caches are recovered from a compromised client or shared device.
• Mitigation Strategy: Avoid storing tokens in localStorage; use HttpOnly cookies; prevent caching of sensitive pages (cache-control: no-store), clear temporary data on logout, warn about shared devices, and provide secure mobile app guidance.

THR-020 - HPC & FPGA Hardware Zone (FPGA programming)

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Bypassing approval workflow or exploiting API flaws to program FPGA devices with unauthorized bitfiles, potentially damaging hardware or enabling persistent hardware-level backdoors.
• Mitigation Strategy: Require multi-person approvals for hardware programming, cryptographic signing of bitfiles, strict RBAC for programming APIs, hardware-level authentication and logging, and implement failsafe controls on FPGA programming endpoints.

THR-022 - Application Services & Object Store (logs/artifacts)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Storage of logs and artifacts with public or overly permissive ACLs or long-lived pre-signed URLs leads to unintended public access of sensitive outputs.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use least-privilege ACLs, default private buckets, short-lived pre-signed URLs, encrypt at rest, audit and alert on public ACLs, and periodically scan storage for exposed objects.

THR-023 - File Management (uploads)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Malicious or malformed file uploads (including bitfiles) that contain malware or specially crafted data causing downstream EDA tools or workers to behave unexpectedly or execute arbitrary code.
• Mitigation Strategy: Scan uploads for malware, validate file formats and signatures, store uploads as non-executable, process files in sandboxed/ephemeral environments, block known bad file types, and apply content-disarm-and-reconstruct where possible.

THR-025 - Deployment & Ops (Ansible / images)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Compromise of Ansible playbooks, container images, or CI artifacts leads to deployment of backdoored containers or malicious configuration changes across environment.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use signed playbooks and signed container images, restrict access to artifact repositories, use reproducible builds, scan images for vulnerabilities, and require approvals for production changes.

THR-028 - Background Workers & Orchestrator (service identity)

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: A compromised worker node impersonates the orchestrator or other services to SLURM or storage systems to access or modify jobs/artifacts.
• Mitigation Strategy: Use mTLS for service-to-service communication, mutual authentication and authorization (service identity), service mesh or short-lived service credentials, host attestation, and restrict worker network segmentation.

THR-029 - Application Services (API serialization)

• Category: Elevation of Privilege
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High
• Risk Level: High
• Description: Insecure deserialization or unsafe object handling in API endpoints leading to remote code execution or privilege escalation for attackers sending crafted payloads.
• Mitigation Strategy: Avoid unsafe deserialization, use allow-lists for serialized data, validate all input, apply runtime integrity checks, run services with minimal privileges, and conduct code reviews and automated scanning for deserialization issues.

Medium Risk Threats

THR-006 - Application Services (audit logging)

• Category: Repudiation
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed build submissions, approvals, or FPGA programming actions.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement immutable, append-only audit logs with hashing, forward logs to a central SIEM, record actor identity and request context, protect logs from modification and ensure time synchronization, retain logs per policy.

THR-010 - Frontend Layer (forms & state changes)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to unknowingly create, cancel, or alter build tasks.
• Mitigation Strategy: Implement anti-CSRF tokens for state-changing endpoints, enforce SameSite cookies, verify Origin/Referer headers for sensitive endpoints, and require re-authentication for critical actions.

THR-014 - Notifications (Email)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Inclusion of sensitive build outputs, artifact links or secrets in email notifications leads to information leakage, especially if email recipients include external addresses.
• Mitigation Strategy: Redact or avoid including sensitive data in emails, include only authenticated links that require login, restrict external recipients, enable TLS and DMARC, and provide user notification preferences.

THR-016 - Edge & Auth (WebSockets / SSE)

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Abuse of real-time channels (WebSockets/SSE) to open many connections or send large messages, exhausting server resources and denying service to legitimate users.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce per-client connection limits, authentication for real-time channels, rate limits for messages, connection timeouts, load balancer protections and backpressure mechanisms, use autoscaling and circuit breakers.

THR-021 - External Integrations (GitHub webhooks)

• Category: Spoofing
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Replay of webhook events or forging webhook payloads to trigger builds or inject falsified commit/PR metadata.
• Mitigation Strategy: Verify webhook signatures and timestamps, reject replayed events, enforce short TTLs for nonces, restrict incoming webhook IP ranges, and log webhook sources for audit.

THR-024 - Data Storage & Analytics (object store capacity)

• Category: Denial of Service
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Exhaustion of storage capacity by deliberate or accidental upload of very large artifacts, causing new builds to fail or system to degrade.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce per-user and per-project storage quotas, lifecycle policies to expire old artifacts, alerts on capacity thresholds, deduplication, and pre-upload size checks.

THR-026 - Notifications (SMTP)

• Category: Information Disclosure
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Emails sent without enforced TLS or to external recipients might be intercepted, exposing commit details, logs, or artifact links.
• Mitigation Strategy: Enforce STARTTLS/TLS for SMTP, prefer encrypted internal channels for sensitive content, avoid sending secrets in email bodies, apply DMARC/DKIM/SPF, and restrict auto-notifications to internal addresses.

THR-027 - Application Services (webhooks & triggers)

• Category: Repudiation
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Insufficient logging of webhook events and build triggers makes it difficult to prove who triggered a build or when an automated action occurred.
• Mitigation Strategy: Log full webhook metadata with signature verification results, persist event payloads securely, correlate with user accounts, and forward to SIEM; ensure log integrity and retention policies.

THR-030 - Frontend + Log Viewer (client-side rendering)

• Category: Tampering
• Likelihood: Medium | Impact: Medium
• Risk Level: Medium
• Description: Improper handling of log content or binary preview causes client-side injection or misuse (reflected/stored XSS) affecting other users viewing logs or dashboards.
• Mitigation Strategy: Sanitize and escape any log content and file previews before rendering, use text-only safe viewers for logs, restrict rendering of HTML in logs, and enforce CSP.

Total Threats: 30

---

Appendix D: Complete Requirements Traceability Matrix

This appendix provides complete end-to-end traceability from requirements through threats to controls and verification.

Full Traceability Table

Req ID	Requirement	Category	Sensitivity	Threat IDs	Security Controls	Priority	Verification	Status
REQ-001	Active Directory single sign-on (SSO) integration …	Authentication	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-003 +7	[OWASP] V2.1, [NIST] IA-2, [ISO27001] A.9.4.2 +1	Critical	Review documented procedures, check enforcement of secure logon (MFA, session policies), and interview administrators about SSO process., Review SSO configuration, test SAML/OIDC flows, inspect tokens/assertions, verify TLS and signature validation, and check assertion lifetime and audience restrictions.	Pending
REQ-002	Role-based access control (RBAC) with configurable…	Authorization	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-003 +7	[NIST] AC-2, [ISO27001] A.9.1.2, [OWASP] V4.1 +1	Critical	Conduct authorization tests, attempt privilege escalation, and review access control checks across endpoints., Inspect account lifecycle procedures, test provisioning/deprovisioning scenarios, and review recent account change logs.	Pending
REQ-003	User profile management allowing users to set pref…	User Management	Medium	THR-001, THR-003, THR-004 +7	[OWASP] V2.1, [NIST] IA-2, [ISO27001] A.9.4.2 +1	Critical	Review documented procedures, check enforcement of secure logon (MFA, session policies), and interview administrators about SSO process., Review SSO configuration, test SAML/OIDC flows, inspect tokens/assertions, verify TLS and signature validation, and check assertion lifetime and audience restrictions.	Pending
REQ-004	Responsive web dashboard for monitoring builds, ta…	User Experience	Low	THR-009, THR-012, THR-013 +4	[OWASP] V14.1, [NIST] SC-7, [ISO27001] A.12.1.1 +1	Critical	Review documentation, run operational drills, and verify staff adherence to procedures., Perform XSS testing (automated and manual), review CSP headers and template encoding usage, and test across devices.	Pending
REQ-005	Real-time client updates using WebSockets or Serve…	Real-time Communication	Medium	THR-002, THR-006, THR-008 +7	[OWASP] V5.2, [NIST] SC-8, [ISO27001] A.10.1.1 +1	Critical	Inspect TLS configuration, attempt unauthorized channel access, review token usage on handshake, and test Origin header validation., Network capture analysis to verify encryption, validate cipher suites and certificate chain, and run MITM tests.	Pending
REQ-006	Interactive file browser with upload (drag-and-dro…	File Management	High	THR-004, THR-005, THR-008 +6	[OWASP] V13.3, [NIST] SI-3, [ISO27001] A.13.2.1 +1	Critical	Review policies, confirm operational controls enforce policies, and test adherence with sample transfers., Inspect version metadata records, verify checksum calculation, and test access control enforcement for different roles.	Pending
REQ-007	Support large file uploads (multi-GB) with resumab…	File Management	High	THR-004, THR-005, THR-008 +7	[OWASP] V13.5, [NIST] SC-5, [ISO27001] A.12.6.1 +1	High	Simulate concurrent large uploads to validate throttling and observe system behavior under stress., Verify server-side checksum validation, attempt to bypass quotas and confirm appropriate errors returned.	Pending
REQ-008	Web-based creation, editing, deletion of build tas…	Task Management	Medium	THR-002, THR-006, THR-008 +7	[OWASP] V4.2, [NIST] AC-6, [ISO27001] A.14.2.5 +1	Critical	Code review of task APIs, penetration testing and review of network exposure., Conduct injection tests, IDOR checks, and review database access patterns for task endpoints.	Pending
REQ-009	Task lifecycle management with status tracking (To…	Task Management	Medium	THR-001, THR-005, THR-006 +4	[NIST] AU-2, [OWASP] V11.4, [ISO27001] A.12.4.3 +1	Critical	Review admin logs and confirm entries include necessary context for each action., Attempt log tampering in a controlled test, verify tamper detection and searchability.	Pending
REQ-010	Task queue management with priorities, scheduling …	HPC Integration	High	THR-001, THR-005, THR-007 +7	[NIST] PL-8, [OWASP] V8.3, [ISO27001] A.12.1.2 +1	Critical	Run failure scenarios for scheduler unavailability and confirm contingency process works as designed., Attempt to submit jobs with escalated priorities, invalid parameters and observe enforcement of quotas and validation.	Pending
REQ-011	Background worker service(s) responsible for commu…	Backend Services	High	THR-007, THR-008, THR-009 +7	[NIST] SC-12, [OWASP] V10.2, [ISO27001] A.9.4.1 +1	Critical	Inspect TLS configurations, validate mutual authentication, and capture traffic to confirm encryption., Inspect audit log contents for job lifecycle events and verify log integrity protection.	Pending
REQ-012	REST API endpoints to submit, query, cancel and ma…	API	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-005 +7	[OWASP] V5.1, [NIST] AC-3, [ISO27001] A.14.2.1 +1	Critical	Attempt unauthorized access and verify API rejects requests; review enforcement logs., Test auth enforcement, validate TLS and attempt injection or malformed parameter submissions.	Pending
REQ-013	Controlled Web API for programming FPGAs with bitf…	FPGA Integration	High	THR-004, THR-006, THR-008 +4	[OWASP] V12.1, [NIST] CM-3, [ISO27001] A.9.2.6 +1	Critical	Review access control lists and recent access entitlement changes for FPGA controllers., Verify signature verification, simulate unauthorized programming attempts, and audit bitfile deployment logs.	Pending
REQ-014	Integration with UART ports and console redirectio…	Hardware Access	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-003 +7	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending
REQ-015	Live log viewer providing streamed EDA tool output…	Logging & Diagnostics	Medium	THR-004, THR-006, THR-008 +7	[NIST] AU-2, [OWASP] V11.2, [ISO27001] A.12.4.1 +1	Critical	Attempt unauthorized modifications in test environment, verify logs include integrity checks and access controls., Capture streaming traffic to verify encryption, audit logs for integrity metadata, and test export redaction rules.	Pending
REQ-016	GitHub OAuth authentication option and UI for link…	Source Control Integration	Medium	THR-001, THR-002, THR-012 +6	[OWASP] V2.1, [NIST] SA-9, [ISO27001] A.15.1.1 +1	Critical	Review integration documentation, validate webhook signatures and test reaction to tampered webhooks., Send forged webhook payloads and confirm they are rejected; inspect webhook handling logs for signature validation.	Pending
REQ-017	Display commit metadata and ability to link builds…	Source Control Integration	Low	THR-001, THR-002, THR-005 +7	[NIST] CM-8, [OWASP] V11.1, [ISO27001] A.12.2.1 +1	High	Verify build records’ metadata signatures/checksums and attempt to tamper with metadata to test detection., Review change logs linking builds to commits and confirm responsible parties are recorded.	Pending
REQ-018	In-app notifications with a notifications center (…	Notifications	Low	THR-001, THR-002, THR-003 +7	[ISO27001] A.18.1.4, [NIST] PL-8, [OWASP] V13.4 +1	High	Attempt unauthorized preference changes and confirm system blocks them., Review architecture artifacts and ensure channel protections are implemented and documented.	Pending
REQ-019	Reporting and analytics dashboard showing build tr…	Reporting & Analytics	Medium	THR-002, THR-006, THR-007 +7	[ISO27001] A.18.1.3, [NIST] AU-6, [OWASP] V11.3 +1	High	Check classification labels for datasets and sample enforcement in analytics outputs., Review sample exports for PII, test access controls, and verify export encryption.	Pending
REQ-020	Artifact storage with lifecycle policies, retentio…	Data Management	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-005 +7	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending
REQ-021	Comprehensive audit trail for user actions (login/…	Compliance & Auditing	High	THR-001, THR-003, THR-004 +7	[NIST] AU-2, [OWASP] V11.4, [ISO27001] A.12.4.3 +1	Critical	Review admin logs and confirm entries include necessary context for each action., Attempt log tampering in a controlled test, verify tamper detection and searchability.	Pending
REQ-022	Admin panel for system configuration (roles, RBAC …	Administration	High	THR-005, THR-006, THR-007 +7	[OWASP] V4.3, [NIST] AC-17, [ISO27001] A.9.4.3 +1	Critical	Review health endpoint authentication, check monitoring integrations, and test alert triggers., Attempt admin access without MFA, test role boundaries and review admin audit logs.	Pending
REQ-023	Containerized deployment using Docker images for s…	Deployment	Medium	THR-005, THR-006, THR-011 +7	[NIST] CM-2, [OWASP] V10.4, [ISO27001] A.12.6.1 +1	Critical	Review image inventory, baseline configs and confirm image promotion/pipeline enforces sign/scan steps., Review playbook repository controls, code reviews of provisioning scripts and test runs in staging.	Pending
REQ-024	Database backup and restore features exposed via t…	Data Protection	High	THR-008, THR-009, THR-011 +7	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending
REQ-025	Transport encryption (TLS) for all web and API tra…	Cryptography & Secrets Management	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-003 +7	[NIST] MP-6, [OWASP] V6.3, [NIST] SC-12 +1	Critical	Review secret storage implementation, check for hard-coded secrets and test rotation workflows., Review cryptography policy and evidence of enforcement for secret management.	Pending
REQ-026	Web application security controls including CSRF p…	Application Security	High	THR-001, THR-005, THR-006 +7	None	Medium	Manual Review	Pending
REQ-027	Network and infrastructure segmentation: backend s…	Network Security	High	THR-001, THR-002, THR-003 +7	[NIST] AC-4, [OWASP] V12.2, [ISO27001] A.11.1.1 +1	Critical	Compare running configs to baselines and report drift for remediation., Perform network flow analysis and attempt unauthorized flows to verify enforcement.	Pending
REQ-028	Operational monitoring, alerting and maintenance p…	Operations & Maintenance	Medium	THR-001, THR-006, THR-017 +4	[NIST] SI-2, [OWASP] V10.6, [ISO27001] A.12.6.1 +1	Critical	Review vulnerability management metrics, scan schedules and SLA compliance., Inspect vulnerability tracking system and verify remediation timelines and evidence of fixes.	Pending

Total Requirements Tracked: 28

Detailed Requirement Mappings

The following section provides detailed traceability for each requirement:

REQ-001: Active Directory single sign-on (SSO) integration for user authentication with support for enterpris…

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-003: Session hijacking via stolen session cookies (e.g., through XSS or network inter…
• THR-004: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session to…
• THR-010: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to unknowing…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V2.1: [OWASP] Verify that authentication mechanisms use secure, industry standard protocols (e…
• [NIST] IA-2: [NIST] Identify and authenticate users. The information system uniquely identifies and …
• [ISO27001] A.9.4.2: [ISO27001] Secure log-on procedures. Where required, users shall be provided with a secure …
• [OWASP] V2.2: [OWASP] Session management must protect session tokens (use secure cookies, HttpOnly, Sa…

Verification: Review documented procedures, check enforcement of secure logon (MFA, session policies), and interview administrators about SSO process., Review SSO configuration, test SAML/OIDC flows, inspect tokens/assertions, verify TLS and signature validation, and check assertion lifetime and audience restrictions., Inspect cookie flags, perform session fixation and hijack tests, verify session rotation on privilege elevation and check session timeout behavior., Inspect identity mapping, test authentication for multiple users, verify unique IDs in logs and ensure disabled AD accounts are denied access.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-002: Role-based access control (RBAC) with configurable roles and permissions (e.g., admin, build-owner, …

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-003: Session hijacking via stolen session cookies (e.g., through XSS or network inter…
• THR-004: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session to…
• THR-005: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parame…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [NIST] AC-2: [NIST] Account management. The organization manages information system accounts, includ…
• [ISO27001] A.9.1.2: [ISO27001] Access to networks and network services shall be controlled.
• [OWASP] V4.1: [OWASP] Verify role-based access control is enforced server-side and default-deny is app…
• [ISO27001] A.9.2.3: [ISO27001] Users shall follow secure use of authentication information and manage their cre…

Verification: Conduct authorization tests, attempt privilege escalation, and review access control checks across endpoints., Inspect account lifecycle procedures, test provisioning/deprovisioning scenarios, and review recent account change logs., Review access control policies, role definitions, and sample enforcement in the application., Review user guidance materials, check enforcement of credential policies and audit of profile changes.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-003: User profile management allowing users to set preferences, notification settings, and view account a…

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-003: Session hijacking via stolen session cookies (e.g., through XSS or network inter…
• THR-004: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session to…
• THR-005: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parame…
• THR-010: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to unknowing…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V2.1: [OWASP] Verify that authentication mechanisms use secure, industry standard protocols (e…
• [NIST] IA-2: [NIST] Identify and authenticate users. The information system uniquely identifies and …
• [ISO27001] A.9.4.2: [ISO27001] Secure log-on procedures. Where required, users shall be provided with a secure …
• [OWASP] V2.2: [OWASP] Session management must protect session tokens (use secure cookies, HttpOnly, Sa…

Verification: Review documented procedures, check enforcement of secure logon (MFA, session policies), and interview administrators about SSO process., Review SSO configuration, test SAML/OIDC flows, inspect tokens/assertions, verify TLS and signature validation, and check assertion lifetime and audience restrictions., Inspect cookie flags, perform session fixation and hijack tests, verify session rotation on privilege elevation and check session timeout behavior., Inspect identity mapping, test authentication for multiple users, verify unique IDs in logs and ensure disabled AD accounts are denied access.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-004: Responsive web dashboard for monitoring builds, tasks, system status and inventory with role-sensiti…

Related Threats:

• THR-009: Exposed or unencrypted DB or artifact backups (e.g., stored on shared file syste…
• THR-012: Compromise or misconfiguration of the secrets manager exposes credentials for HP…
• THR-013: Malicious code in a repository or PR triggers automated builds which execute in …
• THR-017: Intentional or accidental bulk task creation/cancellation (e.g., via API abuse) …
• THR-024: Exhaustion of storage capacity by deliberate or accidental upload of very large …
• …and 2 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V14.1: [OWASP] Verify web application is resilient to XSS and that output encoding is used on a…
• [NIST] SC-7: [NIST] Boundary protection. Monitor and control communications at external and internal…
• [ISO27001] A.12.1.1: [ISO27001] Operating procedures should be documented for system operation including monitor…
• [OWASP] V14.3: [OWASP] Ensure secure configuration of UI frameworks and third-party components used in …

Verification: Review documentation, run operational drills, and verify staff adherence to procedures., Perform XSS testing (automated and manual), review CSP headers and template encoding usage, and test across devices., Run SCA on front-end dependencies, review SBOM, and verify upgrades/patches applied., Review network architecture, inspect WAF rules, and perform penetration testing of dashboard backends.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-005: Real-time client updates using WebSockets or Server-Sent Events for build status, job progress, logs…

Related Threats:

• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-006: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed …
• THR-008: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain pr…
• THR-010: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to unknowing…
• THR-013: Malicious code in a repository or PR triggers automated builds which execute in …
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V5.2: [OWASP] Ensure that WebSocket connections use TLS, validate origin headers, and implemen…
• [NIST] SC-8: [NIST] Transmission confidentiality and integrity. Protect the confidentiality and inte…
• [ISO27001] A.10.1.1: [ISO27001] Policy on the use of cryptographic controls shall be developed and implemented t…
• [OWASP] V10.1: [OWASP] Real-time features must implement authorization checks server-side and validate …

Verification: Inspect TLS configuration, attempt unauthorized channel access, review token usage on handshake, and test Origin header validation., Network capture analysis to verify encryption, validate cipher suites and certificate chain, and run MITM tests., Review cryptography policy, confirm enforcement in system settings, and audit TLS certs and key lifecycles., Simulate malformed messages and flooding, verify server rejects unauthorized messages and enforces quotas.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-006: Interactive file browser with upload (drag-and-drop), folder organization, file preview for common t…

Related Threats:

• THR-004: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session to…
• THR-005: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parame…
• THR-008: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain pr…
• THR-009: Exposed or unencrypted DB or artifact backups (e.g., stored on shared file syste…
• THR-019: Sensitive tokens, PII or internal URLs stored in browser localStorage, indexed D…
• …and 4 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V13.3: [OWASP] Validate and sanitize uploaded files. Enforce allow-listing of content types, sc…
• [NIST] SI-3: [NIST] Malicious code protection. Employ anti-malware tools and scanning to detect and …
• [ISO27001] A.13.2.1: [ISO27001] Information transfer policies should include controls for transfer of informatio…
• [OWASP] V13.1: [OWASP] Implement secure file storage and access controls including versioning metadata …

Verification: Review policies, confirm operational controls enforce policies, and test adherence with sample transfers., Inspect version metadata records, verify checksum calculation, and test access control enforcement for different roles., Validate AV logs, test detection of known-malware test files, and inspect quarantine workflow., Upload test files (malicious and benign), inspect storage location and filenames, and confirm AV scanning invoked.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-007: Support large file uploads (multi-GB) with resumable uploads, progress indicators, server-side strea…

Related Threats:

• THR-004: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session to…
• THR-005: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parame…
• THR-008: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain pr…
• THR-009: Exposed or unencrypted DB or artifact backups (e.g., stored on shared file syste…
• THR-011: Broken or missing server-side RBAC allows normal users to perform admin actions …
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V13.5: [OWASP] For large uploads implement chunking, resumable upload protocols with integrity …
• [NIST] SC-5: [NIST] Denial of service protection. Protect against resource depletion via throttling …
• [ISO27001] A.12.6.1: [ISO27001] Ensure that external facing services implementing large file handling are manage…
• [OWASP] V5.1: [OWASP] Implement rate-limiting and quotas on upload APIs and provide resumable upload i…

Verification: Simulate concurrent large uploads to validate throttling and observe system behavior under stress., Verify server-side checksum validation, attempt to bypass quotas and confirm appropriate errors returned., Test resumable upload flows with interruptions, verify integrity checks, and confirm server enforces chunk/overall size limits., Review vulnerability scans, patch records, and confirm components are on supported versions.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

---

REQ-008: Web-based creation, editing, deletion of build tasks with templates, parameterization, and ability t…

Related Threats:

• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-006: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed …
• THR-008: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain pr…
• THR-010: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to unknowing…
• THR-013: Malicious code in a repository or PR triggers automated builds which execute in …
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V4.2: [OWASP] Ensure all task CRUD operations enforce authorization server-side and validate i…
• [NIST] AC-6: [NIST] Least privilege. The organization employs the principle of least privilege for u…
• [ISO27001] A.14.2.5: [ISO27001] Applications accessible from public networks shall be secured to protect data an…
• [OWASP] V14.2: [OWASP] Implement strong input validation and parameterized queries for APIs that modify…

Verification: Code review of task APIs, penetration testing and review of network exposure., Conduct injection tests, IDOR checks, and review database access patterns for task endpoints., Review role assignments, attempt to execute operations with minimal privileges, and inspect logs for bulk actions., Perform privilege escalation tests, input fuzzing, and bulk operation abuse tests to ensure protections.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-009: Task lifecycle management with status tracking (To Do, In Progress, Done, Failed), visual indicators…

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-005: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parame…
• THR-006: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed …
• THR-010: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to unknowing…
• THR-017: Intentional or accidental bulk task creation/cancellation (e.g., via API abuse) …
• …and 2 more threats

Security Controls:

• [NIST] AU-2: [NIST] Audit events. Determine and document auditable events including system and user …
• [OWASP] V11.4: [OWASP] Ensure audit trails are tamper-evident, searchable and contain sufficient contex…
• [ISO27001] A.12.4.3: [ISO27001] Administrator and operator activities shall be logged and monitored to support i…
• [NIST] AU-6: [NIST] Audit review, analysis, and reporting. Regularly review and analyze audit record…

Verification: Review admin logs and confirm entries include necessary context for each action., Attempt log tampering in a controlled test, verify tamper detection and searchability., Inspect log entries for required event fields and perform sample investigations to validate sufficiency., Verify review schedules, alert rules, and SIEM correlation outputs for task-related events.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-010: Task queue management with priorities, scheduling hints and preemption policies; REST API to submit …

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-005: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parame…
• THR-007: Attackers manipulate job submission payloads or job scripts (e.g., inject malici…
• THR-010: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to unknowing…
• THR-015: Misconfigured container runtime (privileged containers, host mounts) or maliciou…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [NIST] PL-8: [NIST] Information security architecture. Develop and maintain an architecture for the …
• [OWASP] V8.3: [OWASP] Ensure job submission APIs enforce authorization, quotas, priority controls and …
• [ISO27001] A.12.1.2: [ISO27001] Change management procedures shall be followed for system changes including job …
• [NIST] CP-2: [NIST] Contingency plan. Develop contingency plans for essential business functions inc…

Verification: Run failure scenarios for scheduler unavailability and confirm contingency process works as designed., Attempt to submit jobs with escalated priorities, invalid parameters and observe enforcement of quotas and validation., Review change logs, approvals and test results for updates to scheduling interfaces., Review architecture docs, interface diagrams, and threat model outputs for SLURM integration.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-011: Background worker service(s) responsible for communication with HPC (SLURM), job state reconciliatio…

Related Threats:

• THR-007: Attackers manipulate job submission payloads or job scripts (e.g., inject malici…
• THR-008: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain pr…
• THR-009: Exposed or unencrypted DB or artifact backups (e.g., stored on shared file syste…
• THR-010: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to unknowing…
• THR-011: Broken or missing server-side RBAC allows normal users to perform admin actions …
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [NIST] SC-12: [NIST] Cryptographic protection. The system protects the confidentiality and integrity …
• [OWASP] V10.2: [OWASP] Background services should authenticate to backend systems using managed credent…
• [ISO27001] A.9.4.1: [ISO27001] Access to systems and services shall be restricted based on business and securit…
• [NIST] AU-12: [NIST] Audit generation. The information system can produce audit records for defined e…

Verification: Inspect TLS configurations, validate mutual authentication, and capture traffic to confirm encryption., Inspect audit log contents for job lifecycle events and verify log integrity protection., Review service account permissions, run access scans and attempt unauthorized operations from worker context., Review credential usage, test secret rotation, and inspect audit logs for job lifecycle events.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-012: REST API endpoints to submit, query, cancel and manage SLURM jobs; APIs must enforce authentication,…

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-005: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parame…
• THR-007: Attackers manipulate job submission payloads or job scripts (e.g., inject malici…
• THR-010: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks cause authenticated users to unknowing…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V5.1: [OWASP] Use strong authentication and authorization for API endpoints; protect APIs with…
• [NIST] AC-3: [NIST] Access enforcement. The information system enforces access restrictions for user…
• [ISO27001] A.14.2.1: [ISO27001] Security requirements of information systems shall be specified and implemented …
• [NIST] SI-10: [NIST] Information input validation. The system checks the validity of inputs to interf…

Verification: Attempt unauthorized access and verify API rejects requests; review enforcement logs., Test auth enforcement, validate TLS and attempt injection or malformed parameter submissions., Run fuzzing and schema-based tests against submission endpoints and verify rejection of invalid inputs., Review requirements artifacts and CI test results validating API security.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-013: Controlled Web API for programming FPGAs with bitfiles, requiring additional approval or role checks…

Related Threats:

• THR-004: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session to…
• THR-006: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed …
• THR-008: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain pr…
• THR-011: Broken or missing server-side RBAC allows normal users to perform admin actions …
• THR-020: Bypassing approval workflow or exploiting API flaws to program FPGA devices with…
• …and 2 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V12.1: [OWASP] APIs that control hardware must enforce strict authentication, authorization and…
• [NIST] CM-3: [NIST] Baseline configuration. Establish and maintain baseline configurations and inven…
• [ISO27001] A.9.2.6: [ISO27001] Access rights shall be reviewed when job roles change, especially for hardware c…
• [NIST] MP-6: [NIST] Media sanitization and protection for removable media and firmware images.

Verification: Review access control lists and recent access entitlement changes for FPGA controllers., Verify signature verification, simulate unauthorized programming attempts, and audit bitfile deployment logs., Inspect inventory, baseline configuration records and test rollbacks., Inspect storage protections, encryption status, and sanitization logs for device media.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-014: Integration with UART ports and console redirection via backend services, exposing console logs in t…

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-003: Session hijacking via stolen session cookies (e.g., through XSS or network inter…
• THR-005: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parame…
• THR-006: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed …
• …and 5 more threats

Verification: Manual Review

Priority: Medium | Status: Pending

---

REQ-015: Live log viewer providing streamed EDA tool outputs, searchable logs, persisted log storage and abil…

Related Threats:

• THR-004: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session to…
• THR-006: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed …
• THR-008: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain pr…
• THR-009: Exposed or unencrypted DB or artifact backups (e.g., stored on shared file syste…
• THR-014: Inclusion of sensitive build outputs, artifact links or secrets in email notific…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [NIST] AU-2: [NIST] Audit events. Determine and document auditable events including system and user …
• [OWASP] V11.2: [OWASP] Ensure logs are captured securely, transmitted with integrity protection, and th…
• [ISO27001] A.12.4.1: [ISO27001] Event logs recording user activities, exceptions and information security events…
• [NIST] AU-9: [NIST] Protection of audit information. Protect audit records from unauthorized access,…

Verification: Attempt unauthorized modifications in test environment, verify logs include integrity checks and access controls., Capture streaming traffic to verify encryption, audit logs for integrity metadata, and test export redaction rules., Review log schema, check that exports contain required fields, and validate completeness via sample forensic scenarios., Review retention policy and verify logs older/within expected retention are available and secured.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-016: GitHub OAuth authentication option and UI for linking GitHub accounts, selecting repositories and br…

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-012: Compromise or misconfiguration of the secrets manager exposes credentials for HP…
• THR-013: Malicious code in a repository or PR triggers automated builds which execute in …
• THR-016: Abuse of real-time channels (WebSockets/SSE) to open many connections or send la…
• …and 4 more threats

Security Controls:

• [OWASP] V2.1: [OWASP] Verify that authentication mechanisms use secure, industry standard protocols (e…
• [NIST] SA-9: [NIST] External systems and services shall be documented and security controls validate…
• [ISO27001] A.15.1.1: [ISO27001] Information security requirements for mitigating risks from supplier access, inc…
• [OWASP] V10.3: [OWASP] Validate and authorize incoming webhook requests (verify signatures), and ensure…

Verification: Review integration documentation, validate webhook signatures and test reaction to tampered webhooks., Send forged webhook payloads and confirm they are rejected; inspect webhook handling logs for signature validation., Review supplier agreements and access lists for GitHub integrations and confirm monitoring is enabled., Review OAuth app settings, test authorization code flow, and inspect token scopes and revocation handling.

Priority: Critical | Status: Pending

---

REQ-017: Display commit metadata and ability to link builds to specific commits and pull requests, including …

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-005: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parame…
• THR-006: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed …
• THR-008: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain pr…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [NIST] CM-8: [NIST] System component inventory. Track and maintain information on components includi…
• [OWASP] V11.1: [OWASP] Capture sufficient metadata for build provenance (commit SHA, author, timestamp)…
• [ISO27001] A.12.2.1: [ISO27001] Control changes to systems and maintain records of changes including version det…
• [NIST] SI-7: [NIST] Software, firmware, and information integrity checks to ensure authenticity and …

Verification: Verify build records’ metadata signatures/checksums and attempt to tamper with metadata to test detection., Review change logs linking builds to commits and confirm responsible parties are recorded., Inspect inventory records and confirm builds link to correct commit SHAs and metadata., Validate artifact checksums against recorded commit data and verify signature chains if used.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

---

REQ-018: In-app notifications with a notifications center (read/unread status), email notifications on key ev…

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-003: Session hijacking via stolen session cookies (e.g., through XSS or network inter…
• THR-004: Cross-site scripting (XSS) in log viewer or file preview that exposes session to…
• THR-006: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed …
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [ISO27001] A.18.1.4: [ISO27001] Ensure compliance with data protection laws and user preferences for notificatio…
• [NIST] PL-8: [NIST] Information security architecture. Plan for privacy and notification channels in…
• [OWASP] V13.4: [OWASP] Protect personal data in notifications and ensure opt-in/opt-out preferences are…
• [NIST] AC-14: [NIST] Permitted actions without identification or authentication. The system restricts…

Verification: Attempt unauthorized preference changes and confirm system blocks them., Review architecture artifacts and ensure channel protections are implemented and documented., Review preference storage, test opt-out flows, and perform privacy impact assessment for notification content., Inspect sent notification samples for PII leakage and test that opt-outs prevent delivery.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

---

REQ-019: Reporting and analytics dashboard showing build trends, success/failure rates, resource usage, per-u…

Related Threats:

• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-006: Insufficient or tamperable audit logs make it impossible to track who performed …
• THR-007: Attackers manipulate job submission payloads or job scripts (e.g., inject malici…
• THR-008: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain pr…
• THR-009: Exposed or unencrypted DB or artifact backups (e.g., stored on shared file syste…
• …and 5 more threats

Security Controls:

• [ISO27001] A.18.1.3: [ISO27001] Records shall be protected from loss, destruction and falsification and shall be…
• [NIST] AU-6: [NIST] Audit review, analysis, and reporting. Regularly review and analyze audit record…
• [OWASP] V11.3: [OWASP] Ensure analytics pipelines protect confidentiality of sensitive data, apply aggr…
• [ISO27001] A.8.2.3: [ISO27001] Information shall be classified to indicate the value, sensitivity and criticali…

Verification: Check classification labels for datasets and sample enforcement in analytics outputs., Review sample exports for PII, test access controls, and verify export encryption., Review audit of analytics access and validate anonymization/aggregation safeguards., Review retention and protection configurations and attempt to alter stored reports.

Priority: High | Status: Pending

---

REQ-020: Artifact storage with lifecycle policies, retention settings, secure downloads, and access controls;…

Related Threats:

• THR-001: Compromise or theft of AD credentials or SSO tokens (phishing, token theft, repl…
• THR-002: Theft or misuse of GitHub OAuth tokens or forging of webhook requests to trigger…
• THR-005: SQL injection or other injection vulnerabilities in APIs that handle task parame…
• THR-008: Unauthorized access to bitfiles, build artifacts, or EDA outputs that contain pr…
• THR-009: Exposed or unencrypted DB or artifact backups (e.g., stored on shared file syste…
• …and 5 more threats

Verification: Manual Review

Priority: Medium | Status: Pending

---

Showing detailed mappings for 20 of 28 requirements.

---

Appendix E: References

• OWASP ASVS 5.0
• NIST Cybersecurity Framework
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022
• OWASP Top 10
• MITRE ATT&CK Framework

---

End of Report - Generated by Security Requirements Analysis System v2.0 Generated: 2025-11-20 12:26:41